Jump to content


The German H Class's of Battleship's


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
38 replies to this topic

Crag_r #1 Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:03 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Alpha Tester
  • 6,857
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Posted Image


The H class was a series of battleship designs for the German Kriegsmarine, intended to fulfill the requirements of Plan Z in the late 1930s and early 1940s. The first variation, "H-39," called for six ships to be built, essentially as enlarged Bismarck class battleships with 40.6 cm (16.0 in) guns. The "H-41" design improved the "H-39" ship with still larger main guns, with eight 42 cm (17 in) weapons. Two subsequent plans, "H-42" and "H-43", increased the main battery yet again, with 48 cm (19 in) pieces, and the enormous "H-44" design ultimately resulted with 50.8 cm (20.0 in) guns. The ships ranged in size from the "H-39", which was 277.8 m (911 ft 5 in) long on a displacement of 56,444 t (55,553 long tons), to the "H-44", at 345 m (1,131 ft 11 in) on a displacement of 131,000 t (129,000 long tons). Most of the designs had a top speed in excess of 30 knots (56 km/h).

Due to the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, none of the ships were ever built; only the first two of the "H-39" ships were laid down. What work that had been accomplished was halted; the assembled steel remained on the slipway until November 1941, when the Oberkommando der Marine ordered it be scrapped for other purposes. Contracts for the other four "H-39" type ships had been awarded, but no work was begun on any of them before they were canceled. None of the subsequent designs progressed further than planning stages. H-44 would not actually be able to use any port in Germany at the time!

Displacement:
H39: 56,444 t (55,553 long tons; 62,219 short tons)
H41: 68,800 t (67,700 long tons; 75,800 short tons)
H42: 90,000 t (89,000 long tons; 99,000 short tons)
H43: 111,000 t (109,000 long tons; 122,000 short tons)
H44: 131,000 t (129,000 long tons; 144,000 short tons)

Length:
H39: 277.8 m (911 ft 5 in)
H41: 282 m (925 ft 2 in)
H42: 305 m (1,000 ft 8 in)
H43: 330 m (1,082 ft 8 in)
H44: 345 m (1,131 ft 11 in)

Beam:
H39: 37 m (121 ft 5 in)
H41: 39 m (127 ft 11 in)
H42: 42.8 m (140 ft 5 in)
H43: 48 m (157 ft 6 in)
H44: 51.5 m (169 ft 0 in)

Draft:
H39: 10 m (32 ft 10 in)
H41: 11.1 m (36 ft 5 in)
H42: 11.8 m (38 ft 9 in)
H43: 12 m (39 ft 4 in)
H44: 12.7 m (41 ft 8 in)

Propulsion: 12 × MAN 9-cylinder diesel engines

Speed:
H39: 30 knots (56 km/h)
H41: 28.8 knots (53.3 km/h)
H42: 32.2 knots (59.6 km/h)
H43: 31 knots (57 km/h)
H44: 30.1 knots (55.7 km/h)

Range:
H39-40; 200 nautical miles (35,600 km) at 19 knots (35 km/h)
H41-44; 20,000 nautical miles (37,000 km) at 19 knots (35 km/h)

Armament:
H39: 8 × 40.6 cm (16.0 in) guns
12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) guns
16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in) guns
16 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in)
12 × 2 cm (0.79 in) guns

H41: 8 × 42 cm (17 in) guns
12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) guns
16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in) guns
32 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in)
12 × 2 cm (0.79 in) guns
6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in) torpedo tubes

H42: 8 × 48 cm (19 in) guns
12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) guns
16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in) guns
28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in)
40 × 2 cm (0.79 in) guns

H43: 8 × 48 cm (19 in) guns
12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) guns
16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in) guns
28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in)
40 × 2 cm (0.79 in) guns

H44: 8 × 50.8 cm (20.0 in) guns
12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) guns
16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in) guns
28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in)
40 × 2 cm (0.79 in) guns

Aircraft carried: 4–9 Arado 196 seaplanes

Aviation facilities: 1 catapult

http://www.navweaps....kc34_turret.jpg


In early July 1940, Hitler ordered the Navy to examine new battleship designs and how wartime experience might be incorporated. A study was completed on 15 July, and contained several recommendations for the H-class ships, including increasing the freeboard and strengthening the horizontal protection. In order to maintain displacement and speed and accommodate the increased weight of the additional armor protection, the design staff drew up an informal design, known as "Scheme A." The design removed one of the main battery turrets to save weight; the propulsion system was also increased in power to keep the same speed as the original design. The original diesel-only system was replaced by a hybrid diesel and steam turbine arrangement. The staff also prepared a second design, "Scheme B", which retained the fourth turret and accepted a much higher displacement. This design also incorporated the mixed propulsion system. These studies were abandoned in 1941 after Hitler decided to halt further battleship construction until after the end of the war. The design staff therefore attempted to improve the armor protection for the H-class. The 1940 designs did not form part of the design chain that resulted in the H-41 through H-44 designs.

H-41
Bomb damage sustained by Scharnhorst in July 1941 provided the impetus for the effort to increase the horizontal protection for the H-class. The designers were confronted with a significant problem: any increase in armor could correspondingly increase the displacement and more importantly, the draft. It was necessary to maintain the full-load draft of 11.5 m of the H-39 design for operations in the relatively shallow North Sea. The only option that allowed the displacement to be maintained while armor thicknesses to be increased was to reduce the ships' fuel supplies. A 25 percent cut in range was required, which was deemed unacceptable by the OKM. It was eventually determined that since deep-water anchorages on the Atlantic coast were available, it would be permissible to allow the draft to increase. The initial redesign called for an increase of only 5,000 long tons (5,100 t), 40 percent of which was additional deck armor, the remainder being used for a larger-caliber main battery.

One of the most significant changes was the decision to bore out the over-sized 40.6 cm guns to 42 cm caliber for the H-41 design. The design staff determined that modifications to the ammunition hoists and loading equipment would be easily effected and that the original turrets could be retained. The OKM was aware that the British had settled on a 40.6 cm gun for the proposed Lion class; the 42 cm gun would grant the H-41 design a significant advantage over these new adversaries. The ships' armament was otherwise unchanged, apart from an increased number of 2 cm anti-aircraft guns, of which there were now to be 34.

The ships' main armor decks were substantially strengthened: the deck was increased in thickness from 120 mm (4.7 in) to 200 mm (7.9 in) and the sloped armor at the edges was thickened from 150 mm (5.9 in) to 175 mm (6.9 in). Wartime experience with the Scharnhorst class indicated that the torpedo-defense system was insufficiently strong to protect the H-39 design from underwater damage. Beam was therefore increased, with greater width added at the ends of the armored citadel to allow a greater distance between the side wall and the torpedo bulkhead. The stern section of the torpedo bulkhead was also strengthened structurally to allow it to better contain the force of an underwater explosion. A triple bottom was also included in the design, the first time a feature was used in a German warship design. The loss of Bismarck in May 1941 also influenced the design; two large skegs were added to the outboard shafts to protect them and increase support for the stern while in drydock. The rudder system was also designed with an explosive charge to detach the rudders in the event they became jammed.

The finalized design was approved by Admiral Raeder on 15 November 1941. The new design measured 282 m (925 ft) long at the waterline, had a beam of 39 m (128 ft), and a draft of up to 12.2 m (40 ft) at full load. The increase in weight, while engine power remained constant, reduced speed to 28.8 kn (53.3 km/h; 33.1 mph). The OKM planned to begin construction six to nine months after demobilization, initially at Blohm & Voss and the Deutsche Werke shipyard in Kiel. Deschimag, which had been awarded the contract for "J", could no longer be used due to the increase in draft, which precluded travel through the shallow Weser. Following the completion of a new, larger dock at the Kriegsmarinewerft in Wilhelmshaven, work would also be done there. The increased size of the ships would have lengthened the building time from four to five years.

H-42 through H-44
On 8 February 1942, Albert Speer became the Reichsminister for Armaments and Munitions and gained influence over the Navy's construction programs. Speer reassigned some members of the H class design staff to work on new U-boats and other tasks deemed critical to the war effort. The Schiffsneubaukommission (New Ships Construction Commission), intended to liaise with Speer and the OKM, was created and placed under the direction of Admiral Karl Topp. This group was responsible for the design work that resulted in the H-42 type, as well as the subsequent designs. The Construction Office of the OKM formally concluded their work on new battleships with the H-41 type and played no further role in battleship development.

After the completion of the H-41 design, Hitler issued a request for a larger battleship and placed no restrictions on gun caliber or displacement. The only requirements were a speed of 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph), horizontal and underwater protection sufficiently strong enough to protect the vessel from all attacks, and a main battery properly balanced with the size of the ship. The results were purely study projects intended to determine the size of a ship with strong enough armor to counter the rapidly increasing power of bombs deployed by the Allies during the war. The Commission did not discuss its activities with Raeder or his successor, Admiral Karl Dönitz, or with other branches in the OKM. As the designs for the H-42, H-43, and H-44 battleships were purely conjectural, no actual work was begun. The German Navy did not seriously consider construction on any of the designs, which were so large that they could not have been built in a traditional slipway. Indeed, the Construction Office of the OKM sought to disassociate itself from the projects, which they found to be of doubtful merit and unnecessary for German victory.

The first design, H-42, was 305 m (1,001 ft) long between perpendiculars and had a beam of 42.8 m (140 ft) and a draft of 11.8 m (39 ft) designed and 12.7 m (42 ft) at full load. The designed displacement was 90,000 t (89,000 long tons; 99,000 short tons) and at full load rose to 96,555 long tons (98,104 t). The dimensions for the second, H-43, increased to 330 m (1,080 ft) between perpendiculars, a beam of 48 m (157 ft), and design and full load drafts of 12 m (39 ft) and 12.9 m (42 ft), respectively. Design displacement was 111,000 t (109,000 long tons; 122,000 short tons) and estimated at 118,110 long tons (120,010 t) at full load. For the final design, H-44, the length rose to 345 m (1,132 ft) between perpendiculars, the beam increased to 51.5 m (169 ft), and draft rose to 12.7 m (42 ft) as designed and 13.5 m (44 ft) at full load. The displacement for H-44 was 131,000 t (129,000 long tons; 144,000 short tons) as designed and up to 139,272 long tons (141,507 t) at full load.

Details on the propulsion systems for these designs are fragmentary and in some cases contradictory. Erich Gröner notes that "some [had] pure [diesel] engine propulsion, others [had] hybrid engine/turbine propulsion systems," but does not record the type and performance for these propulsion systems. William Garzke and Robert Dulin state that all three designs featured hybrid diesel/steam turbine plants, each supplying 266,000 shp (198,000 kW) for top speeds of 31.9 kn (59.1 km/h; 36.7 mph), 30.9 kn (57.2 km/h; 35.6 mph), and 29.8 kn (55.2 km/h; 34.3 mph) for H-42, H-43, and H-44, respectively. According to Garzke and Dulin, the designs had a speed of 24 kn (44 km/h; 28 mph), 23 kn (43 km/h; 26 mph), and 22.5 kn (41.7 km/h; 25.9 mph), respectively, on just diesel engine power. Both sources agree on a maximum range of 20,000 nmi (37,000 km; 23,000 mi) at a cruising speed of 19 kn (35 km/h; 22 mph).

Information on the armament outfits for the designs is equally contradictory. Both sources agree on the armament for H-44, which was to have been eight 50.8 cm (20.0 in) guns. Gröner indicates that H-42 and H-43 were to be armed with eight 48 cm guns, while Garzke and Dulin state that the H-42 design was to have retained the 42 cm guns from the H-41 design and H-43 would have also been armed with 50.8 cm pieces. Both works agree that the secondary armament was to have consisted of twelve 15 cm L/55 guns and sixteen 10.5 cm L/65 guns as in the previous designs, though the lighter weapons are disputed. Gröner states that all three designs were to be equipped with twenty-eight 3.7 cm and forty 2 cm anti-aircraft guns, while Garzke and Dulin report only sixteen 3.7 cm guns and forty 2 cm guns for H-43 and H-44 only; H-42 was to have twenty-four 2 cm guns. Both sources concur that six submerged 53.3 cm torpedo tubes were included in each design.

Size comparison of the Bismark, H class and a Nimitz class carrier

Tirpitz, Bismark class battleship; 52.600 tons 251 m long
http://www.german-na...e/t_tirpitz.gif

H-39; 62.497 tons 277.8 m long
http://www.german-na...battleshiph.gif

H-40; 65.600 tons 282.9 m long
http://www.german-na...rine/t_h40a.gif

H-41; 76.000 tons 300.4 m long
http://www.german-na...arine/t_h41.gif

H-42; 98.000 tons 305.2 m long
http://www.german-na...arine/t_h42.gif

CVN John C. Stennis, US Nimitz class carrier; 102.000 tons 332.9 m long
http://www.german-na...arine/t_cvn.gif

H-43; 120.000 tons 330.2 m long
http://www.german-na...arine/t_h43.gif

H-44; 141.500 tons 345.1 m long
http://www.german-na...arine/t_h44.gif

http://en.wikipedia....eship_proposals
http://www.german-na...fh/history.html

Edited by Crag_r, 06 October 2012 - 02:45 AM.


"Unrivalled"


The Naval Aviator's Motto,


Royal Australian Navy


JeeWeeJ #2 Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:09 AM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Just imagine the size of those things. An H-44 would have roughly the same surface area as two Iowa's combined...THATS HUGE!!! You'd think that they'd be able to mount more guns on such a big ship instead of just 8...


"In Russia Vodka makes everything out of anything." - KGB - proof of awesome devs
"Oh no, you've got it wrong. It's not "everyone", it's about JeeWeeJ, the impersonation of evil on this forums..." - Ariecho


sheep21 #3 Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:11 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members
  • 120
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
H44 was just a theoretical exercise to be fair, not even commisioned by the Navy but more a design me the biggest thing ever idea like the ratte, i would not want this thing in the game...

Crag_r #4 Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:13 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Alpha Tester
  • 6,857
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
The Devs have put a limit on 80,000 tons so the 141,500 just busts that


"Unrivalled"


The Naval Aviator's Motto,


Royal Australian Navy


JeeWeeJ #5 Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:14 AM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postsheep21, on 30 August 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

H44 was just a theoretical exercise to be fair, not even commisioned by the Navy but more a design me the biggest thing ever idea like the ratte, i would not want this thing in the game...
They wont be. The devs said that they'll probably go up to the H-40 or H-41. And MAYBE include the H-42, but wont go any further because those ships are just ridiculous. A H-44 would be a shell magnet due to its sheer size.


"In Russia Vodka makes everything out of anything." - KGB - proof of awesome devs
"Oh no, you've got it wrong. It's not "everyone", it's about JeeWeeJ, the impersonation of evil on this forums..." - Ariecho


Crag_r #6 Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:28 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Alpha Tester
  • 6,857
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
And everyone was saying on the forums how OP the Bismark would be, compared to this the Bismark's are pussy cats!


"Unrivalled"


The Naval Aviator's Motto,


Royal Australian Navy


JeeWeeJ #7 Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:33 AM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostCrag_r, on 30 August 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

And everyone was saying on the forums how OP the Bismark would be, compared to this the Bismark's are pussy cats!
Lol, yeah. If these are just enlarged Bismarcks, we'll have ships with VERY large, fast-reloading, highly accurate guns. With the drawback of having one gun less and a weaker secondary battery.

Where can i get mine? :)


"In Russia Vodka makes everything out of anything." - KGB - proof of awesome devs
"Oh no, you've got it wrong. It's not "everyone", it's about JeeWeeJ, the impersonation of evil on this forums..." - Ariecho


Crag_r #8 Posted 30 August 2012 - 10:53 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Alpha Tester
  • 6,857
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostJeeWeeJ, on 30 August 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Lol, yeah. If these are just enlarged Bismarcks, we'll have ships with VERY large, fast-reloading, highly accurate guns. With the drawback of having one gun less and a weaker secondary battery.

Where can i get mine? :)

Probably going to be one of the more expensive ships in game, better start grinding that free XP and credits now for it!


"Unrivalled"


The Naval Aviator's Motto,


Royal Australian Navy


Jetu #9 Posted 30 August 2012 - 11:12 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Alpha Tester
  • 273
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
H42 seems to be too much though,

It's bigger in all aspects; and faster too... compared to H41.
"WHY GO H41... H42 IS BETTER!"

I don't see how they can maybe get it in without messing the Tier 10 German balance.
Only ships that might work is H40b and H41.  H40b being faster; and less deck armored to the later. At roughly the same size.

Capcon #10 Posted 30 August 2012 - 01:40 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester
  • 1,452
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostCrag_r, on 30 August 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

And everyone was saying on the forums how OP the Bismark would be, compared to this the Bismark's are pussy cats!

Really? Bismark has a hard time being OP versus any of it's contemporaries. Littorio, Richelieu, South Dakota, KGV, not afraid of a Bismark in any of those.

And if I'm conning the HMS Rodney I'll take on anything. That ship has been my lucky charm in table top naval wargames for many many years. :biggrin:
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." - Theodore Roosevelt

Bludgeoned2Death #11 Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:34 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members
  • 174
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
I never considered the sheer size of the H-44 until compared to a Nimitz. That's just...ridiculous. The size of that thing would be ridiculous. And 141,500 tons? Daaaamn. Don't let that thing go into the shallows. :P

I am looking forward to the H39 being in the game, though. The H41 as well.

BlackAngelCom #12 Posted 31 August 2012 - 02:00 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members
  • 51
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
H-42 through 44 have thankfully already been disallowed by the developers as unrealistic and impossible for a WWII country to actually construct. H-44 would be very difficult to build today; that's an enormous conventional power plant.

With the stated Tier 10's for the USN/IJN, I think it'll be Bismarck at Tier 8, H-39 at Tier 9 and H-41 at Tier 10. H-40 is too unremarkable and incremental to include.

xthetenth #13 Posted 31 August 2012 - 02:58 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Alpha Tester
  • 329
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
The only reason the H-44 might be more doable today is because it's questionable whether the metallurgy was there to actually build a hull that big to absorb that recoil. The things may have broken under their own guns if they were actually built and fired. Other than that, so much infrastructure has been lost, we'd need to make a new design to the old specs and then where is the armor coming from? We don't have sheet armor plants like that anymore. We don't have artillery foundries like that anymore. We don't and probably can't build conventional machinery like that anymore, although we'd probably be able to make a turboelectric to that scale, those scale nicely.

JeeWeeJ #14 Posted 31 August 2012 - 10:28 AM

    Captain

  • Alpha Tester
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postxthetenth, on 31 August 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

The only reason the H-44 might be more doable today is because it's questionable whether the metallurgy was there to actually build a hull that big to absorb that recoil. The things may have broken under their own guns if they were actually built and fired. Other than that, so much infrastructure has been lost, we'd need to make a new design to the old specs and then where is the armor coming from? We don't have sheet armor plants like that anymore. We don't have artillery foundries like that anymore. We don't and probably can't build conventional machinery like that anymore, although we'd probably be able to make a turboelectric to that scale, those scale nicely.
Which is actually pretty sad. Even though we're able to build extremely advanced things...the art of building a simple, thick plate of armor has been lost. Not that we need it nowadays, but still.


"In Russia Vodka makes everything out of anything." - KGB - proof of awesome devs
"Oh no, you've got it wrong. It's not "everyone", it's about JeeWeeJ, the impersonation of evil on this forums..." - Ariecho


Crag_r #15 Posted 31 August 2012 - 01:14 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Alpha Tester
  • 6,857
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postxthetenth, on 31 August 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

The only reason the H-44 might be more doable today is because it's questionable whether the metallurgy was there to actually build a hull that big to absorb that recoil. The things may have broken under their own guns if they were actually built and fired. Other than that, so much infrastructure has been lost, we'd need to make a new design to the old specs and then where is the armor coming from? We don't have sheet armor plants like that anymore. We don't have artillery foundries like that anymore. We don't and probably can't build conventional machinery like that anymore, although we'd probably be able to make a turboelectric to that scale, those scale nicely.

Well during the second world war, Germany didn't have any ports let alone ship yards big enough to fit the H-44


"Unrivalled"


The Naval Aviator's Motto,


Royal Australian Navy


xthetenth #16 Posted 31 August 2012 - 03:52 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Alpha Tester
  • 329
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Oh by far. I'm just trying to say I'm not entirely sure that they ever could've been built and they were that large primarily justify takiing till the war's end to design so the designers didn't get sent to a Gulag via the Eastern Front.

Crag_r #17 Posted 31 August 2012 - 11:15 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Alpha Tester
  • 6,857
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postxthetenth, on 31 August 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

Oh by far. I'm just trying to say I'm not entirely sure that they ever could've been built and they were that large primarily justify takiing till the war's end to design so the designers didn't get sent to a Gulag via the Eastern Front.

Oh course, and Germany originally wanted these ships built by 1946 the planned date to go to war with the western powers, Germany was sort of court off guard by the declaration of war against them for invading Poland.


"Unrivalled"


The Naval Aviator's Motto,


Royal Australian Navy


Crag_r #18 Posted 13 September 2012 - 02:57 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Alpha Tester
  • 6,857
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
For any Devs listening i could use this moved to the Prototypes and Concept Ships section; http://forum.worldof...-concept-ships/


"Unrivalled"


The Naval Aviator's Motto,


Royal Australian Navy


ReiAyanami #19 Posted 16 September 2012 - 06:01 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members
  • 153
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
I'll take it here because it is more relevant....


First the introduction, of which I introduce you to schwerer Gustav, which I am sure you have heard, Wermacht's 31'' Titan
http://media.desura....etyeryetrer.jpg

Quote

In 1934 the German Army High Command (OKH) commissioned Krupp of Essen, Germany to design a gun to destroy the forts of the French Maginot Line which were then nearing completion. The gun's shells had to punch through seven meters of reinforced concrete or one full meter of steel armour plate, from beyond the range of French artillery. Krupp engineer Erich Müller calculated that the task would require a weapon with a calibre of around 80 cm, firing a projectile weighing 7 tonnes from a barrel 30 meters long. The weapon would have a weight of over 1000 tonnes. The size and weight meant that to be at all movable it would need to be supported on twin sets of railway tracks. In common with smaller railway guns, the only barrel movement on the mount itself would be elevation, traverse being managed by moving the weapon along a curved section of railway line. Krupp prepared plans for calibres of 70 cm, 80 cm, 85 cm, and 1 m.
Nothing further happened until March 1936 when, during a visit to Essen, Adolf Hitler enquired as to the giant guns' feasibility. No definite commitment was given by Hitler, but design work began on an 80 cm model. The resulting plans were completed in early 1937 and approved. Fabrication of the first gun started in the summer of 1937. However, technical complications in the forging of such massive pieces of steel made it apparent that the original completion date of spring 1940 could not be met.
Krupp built a test model in late 1939 and sent it to the Hillersleben firing range for testing. Penetration was tested on this occasion. Firing at high elevation, the 7.1 tonne shell was able to penetrate the specified seven meters of concrete and the one meter armour plate.[3] When the tests were completed in mid-1940 the complex carriage was further developed. Alfried Krupp, after whose father the gun was named, personally hosted Hitler at the Rügenwald Proving Ground during the formal acceptance trials of the Gustav Gun in the spring of 1941. Hitler was so awestruck that he commanded that the 11-tonne[citation needed] shell could only be used at his discretion. As he never gave permission, it was never deployed.

An 800 mm shell next to a Soviet T-34-85 tank at the Imperial War Museum, London
Two guns were ordered. The first round was test-fired from the commissioned gun barrel on 10 September 1941 from a makeshift gun carriage on the Hillersleben firing range. In November 1941 the barrel was taken to Rügenwald, where 8 further firing tests were carried out using the 7,100 kilogram armor-piercing (AP) shell out to a range of 37,210 meters.
In combat, the gun was mounted on a specially designed chassis, supported by eight bogies on two parallel sets of railway tracks. Each of the bogies had 5 axles, giving a total of 40 axles (80 wheels). Krupp christened the gun Schwerer Gustav (Heavy Gustav) after the senior director of the firm, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach.
The gun could fire a heavy concrete-piercing shell and a less heavy high-explosive shell. A super-long-range rocket projectile was also planned with a range of 150 km, that would require the barrel being extended to 84 meters.

From WOT we all know about the Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster, this sanity challenging project of a "tank" that would mount such a thing. Now, I made a dirty thought here in our nice....wows forum.....



And after some search I wasn't the only one. H44 was design that challenged logic but the German designers actually bothered with it for some time until Speer cancelled them all for the sake of reason


But Hitler, following the  P1500 had actually considered Schwerer Gustav to be mounted on a battleship too (!!!!!!) Whether this scaled down to the h44 or was cancelled right away I cannot find right now, but it seems there were some info and discussion floating in warshipprojects boards, deviart and warships1

If this was really the case or not, no serious design ever took place because it was just beyond sanity, reason and logic, it reached philosophical levels about the nature of existence.

More about this here, in this devianart page,  yes this guy actually went out with others and put everything together (the links there don't work any more...damn....)
http://leovictor.dev...FUHRER-99684464


No comments......



















Posted Image

Quote

Displacement: (700,000 tons planned) 462,750 tons light; 484,920 tons standard; 560,057 tons normal service; 617,927 tons full load
Dimensions:
Length: 2,000’ (609.60m)
Beam: 300’ (91.44m)
Draft: 55’ (16.75m)
Armament:
Main: 8 – 31.5” (80cm) Gustav siege guns (4 x 2)
Secondary: 12 – 9.45”/73 (24cm) Long Range AA guns (12 x 1)
Tertiary: 24 – 5.04”/60 (12.8cm) AA guns (12 x 2)
Light: 5.5cm/77 Gerat 58, 30mm AA guns
(Broadside = 131,574 lbs/59,631 kg)
Aircraft: 15 aircraft
Armor:
Belt: 14.96” (380mm) Deck: 14.96” (380mm)
Turrets: 25.96” (660mm) Conning tower: 24.8” (630mm)
Machinery: 8 shafts, (480,000 shp planned) 498,735 shp/372,057 kw
Performance: 28 knots; Range: 30,000 nm @ 20 knots
Complement: (5,000 planned) 10,236 – 13,307
Distribution of weights:
Armament: 16,425 tons = 2.9%
Armor: 158,660 tons = 28.3%
Machinery: 11,931 tons = 2.1%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 274,955 tons = 49.1%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 97,307 tons = 17.4%
Miscellaneous weights: 750 tons = 0.1%
This is a 700,000 ton German battleship built to carry a battery of eight 80 cm/31.5 guns, the siege gun Gustav. This is strictly a flight of fancy taken from remarks made by Hitler that he wanted to mount 80 cm guns on the H-class. It was estimated that it would take a 700,000 ton ship to mount them.
Rate of fire for the main battery would be quite slow, one round per gun every five minutes or more while the AA defense would be much more rapid. The AP shell weighed over 15,000 lbs with 441 lbs of burster while the HC shell weighed over 10,000 lbs with 882 lbs of burster.
The 24 cm/73 AA armament was based upon a Kriegsmarine late war study to develop a land based high altitude gun firing a 300 plus pound shell up to 59,000 feet. It is possible that a 700,000 ton ship could carry twelve of these in single double purpose mounts, partly to make up for the slow rate of fire of the 80cm main battery and to engage cruisers.
The 5"/60 were probably Germany's best AA weapon at the end of the war and would have served this mastodon well.
The 80 cm weight of shell is based upon reality. Initially, the 80cm gun was intended to bombard the Maginot Line but as it was not completed in time, it was intended then to use it against Gibraltar. As Spain would not give right of passage to German invasion forces, the Wehrmacht took the gun(s) to Russia and bombarded Sevastapol and possibly Leningrad. The Gustav fired approximately 46 rounds in two days and inflicted incredible damage.
The turrets on this ship are so huge in order to provide sufficient room to handle absolutely giant shells and hold the extremely extensive and strong hoist and rammer facilities needed to fire the shells.
There is no detail information regarding the ship’s power plant. The total SHP required for a ship of this size dictated at least 8 shafts. Based on the extended range of these ships it would appear that a portion of the power plant was diesel.
This design does not ‘compute’ when plugged into Springsharp. The numbers in the weight distribution are extreme estimates.


:Smile_unsure::Smile_unsure::Smile_unsure:

Edited by ReiAyanami, 16 September 2012 - 06:09 PM.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­▬▬▬

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬~ஜ۩۞۩ஜ~▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­▬▬▬

xthetenth #20 Posted 16 September 2012 - 08:59 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Alpha Tester
  • 329
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
This is the sort of design where it's not entirely sure whether or not the thing won't break under its own weight let alone the recoil of its guns.