Page 1 of 1

A ship history : Seydlitz

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:46 pm
by Antonio Bonomi
Ciao all,

here the Seydlitz ( never commissioned ) :


Ciao Antonio :D

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:09 pm
by Djoser

My memory fails me, what class ship was it to be? Another battlecruiser? That's what it appears to be.


Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:46 am
by Antonio Bonomi
Ciao Djoser and all,

it was a Prinz Eugen class heavy cruiser, like Lutzow.

It was never completed as cruiser.

Works started to transform it on a ligh aircraft carrier ( Aug 1942 ) and was never completed as well ( works stopped after January 1943).

It was than scuttled on 1945 at Konigsberg.

Ciao Antonio :D

Re: A ship history : Seydlitz

Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 11:23 pm
by culverin
How much bearing might the loss of sister Blucher on 9 April 1940 have had on the decision to suspend further work on Seydlitz, bearing in mind the final incomplete unit Lutzow had been sold to the Soviets previously.
The exploits of both Admiral Hipper and Prinz Eugen are well documented, the 8" cruisers, of all navies, were most handy.

Was this the commencement to purging of the surface fleet in favour of underwater warfare.
If so, the fates of all the larger German warships was sealed that day Blucher was so uncerimoniously dispatched.

Re: A ship history : Seydlitz

Posted: Sun May 22, 2016 4:37 am
by Paul L
There is much agreement now that this entire line of warships were a waste of resources. Even at the time; their existence is owed to a compromise that Raeder clawed out of Hitler, who wanted no surface fleet at all....other than for coastal protection.

When Hitler took power a naval plan had just been written into law by Parliament. This plan authorized 6 more enlarged PBS [3 triple 11" turrets & more armor] plus an aircraft carrier [modeled on HMS Glorious aircraft carrier] & 6 CL [something between L class & M class?].Within a year of Hitler's rule this plan blurs , with no reference to the light cruisers or carriers anymore, but exclusively on better & better PBC. They evolve from.....

6 * D-1 ~ 18kt improved AGS [3 III 11"C28] 120mm belt design speed 27-28kts
6 * D-2a ~22kt Panzerschiffe [ 2 III 11"C28] 200mm belt [design speed 27.4 kts diesel 28.7kts turbine]
6 * D-2b ~22kt Panzerschiffe [ 2 III 13" guns ] 125mm belt [design speed 27.4 kts diesel 28.7kts turbine]
6 * D-3a ~26kt Panzerschiffe [4 II 13" guns ] 220mm belt [300mm tower/turrets] design speed 29.5 kts turbine
6 * D-3b ~26kt Panzerschiffe [2 IV 13" guns ] 260mm belt [300mm tower/turrets] design speed 29.5 kts turbine
6 * D-3c ~26kt Panzerschiffe [3 III 13" guns ] 220mm belt [300mm tower/turrets] design speed 29.5 kts turbine

8 * D-4 ~22-23kt Panzerschiffe [2 III 13" guns] 220mm belt [300mm tower/turrets] design speed 29.5 kts turbine
Hitler rejected all these 13” gun designs so they redid the plan for ...
D-5 >23kt Panzerschiffe [2 III 11"C28] 220mm belt [300mm tower/turrets] design speed 29.5 kts turbine.

In 1934 discussion , Raeder convinced Hitler that a couple of 14” gun battle cruisers were needed to counter the two French battle cruiser dunkerque, so work began to evolve the D-3 designs to handle 3 twin 14” gun turrets and orders were placed for 2 x cruisers plus 3 x 35kt battle cruisers - only to have Hitler demand triple 11” C34 turrets instead of the twin 14” gun turrets. Raeder shortened the order to two & two and tried again with a pair of Bismarck battleships to counter the two French Richelieu battleships plus another three cruisers to complete these orders.

To recap - Naval plan 1932 ordered ¼ million tons on 1 x CV + 6 x Pzsch & 6 CL.... that Hitler forced Raeder to change to 2 x BC + 2 BB & 5 CA. The CA were something of an afterthought as was the CV.

They should never have been built in the first place, but as to the specifics of you question it happened as a by product of Hitler sacking Raeder in 1943 after some dismal naval battles .