Jump to content

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles

So correct me if I'm wrong, but in 1931, Germany had only 2 Battleships, both Deutschland-class.  But then that year they launched the Deutschland-class Deutschland, the Panzerschiffe Pocket Battleship.  At her commissioning in 1933, the Deutschland would have been the most heavily armed ship in the German Navy.  But why call it Deutschland-class if their two heaviest units already had the same class name?  This sounds so terribly confusing.  Weren't class names suppose to prevent this kind of confusion?  What was the reasoning behind it?

Deutschland-class at the Panama Canal, 1938

Schlesien_Panama.jpg

 

Deutschland-class on non-intervention patrol in 1938.

Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1973-077-63,_Panze

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,575
[TASH]
Members
4,990 posts
7,877 battles

I'm gonna guess it's because of their patriotic name to stir up morale in the German people at that time?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,018
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,128 posts
8,746 battles

Deutschland-class (Pre) Dreadnought Battleship

Deutschland-class Cruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
593
[HYDRO]
Members
1,299 posts
3,653 battles

It could be from simply being patriotic as Valkyr suggested.

Keep in mind that the class violated the Versailles treaty on tonnage and still went through. Such an act of defiance, especially after all Germany went through in the interwar period may have led to the class being named as such and would have been quite popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,188
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,325 posts
9,387 battles

It's their boat, and their navy.. They set their own rules. In WW2, the US had 2 each of Lexington, Yorktown, and Hornet. Go figure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
8 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

It could be from simply being patriotic as Valkyr suggested.

Keep in mind that the class violated the Versailles treaty on tonnage and still went through. Such an act of defiance, especially after all Germany went through in the interwar period may have led to the class being named as such and would have been quite popular.

So basically not enough Deutschland in their navy?  Needs more Deutschland?  Deutschland II Electric Boogaloo?

 

Most Powerful Ships in German Navy 1933:

1. Deutschland - Deutschland Class

2. Schleswig-Holstein - Deutschland Class

3. Schlesien - Deutschland Class

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
593
[HYDRO]
Members
1,299 posts
3,653 battles
3 minutes ago, Sventex said:

So basically not enough Deutschland in their navy?  Needs more Deutschland?  Deutschland II Electric Boogaloo?

 

Most Powerful Ships in German Navy 1933:

1. Deutschland - Deutschland Class

2. Schleswig-Holstein - Deutschland Class

3. Schlesien - Deutschland Class

Kinda yeah :Smile_teethhappy:

I mean we are talking about Germany a few years after the Great Depression and that after all the Versailles reparations. 

Naming a brand new ship class that would stick it to Entente after the country itself would make sense. 

Also there is the possibility they named it such to confuse people and not realize it was a brand new ship. :Smile_hiding:

That said, all these are theories. 

They could have easily thrown  a dart at a target with various possible names for the class and it happened to hit Deutchland :Smile-_tongue:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
238
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,311 posts
9,389 battles
25 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

It could be from simply being patriotic as Valkyr suggested.

Keep in mind that the class violated the Versailles treaty on tonnage and still went through. Such an act of defiance, especially after all Germany went through in the interwar period may have led to the class being named as such and would have been quite popular.

If I remember correctly, the Panzerschiffe didn't violate the Versailles treaty, Germany was limited to building 32,000 tons of capital ships total, which would have effectively limited them to building a big useless 32K ton flagship, or a couple small undersized useless 16,000 ton coastal battleships. Nobody ever thought the Germans would build what they did, two 10K ton and one 12K ton cruiser armed with 11" guns (Graf Spee was heavier than her sisters, and there was plenty of lying and cheating on displacement standards on par with the rest of the world.)

In service, they were always referred to as Panzerschiffe by the Germans, so it's not really a problem for the Germans. A lot of class names get incorrectly applied as a result of the various books published in England. In England it's by first ship launched? In the US it's by the first ship of a class as authorized by Congress,  in Russia classes get project numbers, ect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
20 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

If I remember correctly, the Panzerschiffe didn't violate the Versailles treaty, Germany was limited to building 32,000 tons of capital ships total, which would have effectively limited them to building a big useless 32K ton flagship, or a couple small undersized useless 16,000 ton coastal battleships. Nobody ever thought the Germans would build what they did, two 10K ton and one 12K ton cruiser armed with 11" guns (Graf Spee was heavier than her sisters, and there was plenty of lying and cheating on displacement standards on par with the rest of the world.)

In service, they were always referred to as Panzerschiffe by the Germans, so it's not really a problem for the Germans. A lot of class names get incorrectly applied as a result of the various books published in England. In England it's by first ship launched? In the US it's by the first ship of a class as authorized by Congress,  in Russia classes get project numbers, ect...

So it's possible that Germany didn't even have a ship-class naming system?  That's interesting, so all the German ship classes could have been applied retroactively by the Royal Navy system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
145
[RTXN]
Beta Testers
581 posts

The Deutschland BB was decommissioned and broken up in 1922.  The Deutschland Panzerschiffe was commissioned in 1929. 

If the times in commission were overlapping, then it would be confusing.  The class designation probably should have reverted one of the units still remaining in

commission (Hannover class), but Germany is different.  Just have to pay more attention to the ship type.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland-class_battleship

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
238
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,311 posts
9,389 battles
15 minutes ago, Sventex said:

So it's possible that Germany didn't even have a ship-class naming system?  That's interesting, so all the German ship classes could have been applied retroactively by the Royal Navy system.

The Germans did have a system, only slightly different than the British one (if the British named the class at launching, the Germans named the class when it was commissioned or laid down, just different enough to screw with people today), it's that the Panzerschiffe from everything I've read over the years are pretty much an exception to everyone's rules.

For example, the Germans always referred to them as Panzerschiffe, never as Battleships, Pocket Battleships, Battlecruisers, or Cruisers, probably just to confuse the issue as to what they really were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,223
[RKLES]
Members
7,090 posts
8,720 battles

Might be because they are different classes of ships, so if you have Deutschland Class BBs then maybe you can have Deutschland class Panzerchiffs or CAs?

I know USN had the Alaska Class CAs, but later had a sub named Alaska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
1,617 posts
4,887 battles
2 hours ago, Sventex said:

So correct me if I'm wrong, but in 1931, Germany had only 2 Battleships, both Deutschland-class.  But then that year they launched the Deutschland-class Deutschland, the Panzerschiffe Pocket Battleship.  At her commissioning in 1933, the Deutschland would have been the most heavily armed ship in the German Navy.  But why call it Deutschland-class if their two heaviest units already had the same class name?  This sounds so terribly confusing.  Weren't class names suppose to prevent this kind of confusion?  What was the reasoning behind it?

Deutschland-class at the Panama Canal, 1938

Schlesien_Panama.jpg

 

Deutschland-class on non-intervention patrol in 1938.

Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1973-077-63,_Panze

Ok, the lead ship of the Deutschland class was a Pre-Dreadnought battleship launched by the Germans in 1906.  She was the first of five battleships built to the same design as as per naval tradition, the first ship built in a series of the same design gives it's name to that class of vessels.  Hence the Deutschland class.  

After the end of WW I, the Germans were allowed to retain a handful of their now badly out of date Pre-Dreadnought battleships, several of which were battleships of the Deutschland class. The Deutschland herself, however, was in poor condition and was scrapped in 1920 rather than retained.  This freed the name of the ship up for use on a different vessel even though other members of the "Deutschland class" battleships were still in service.

The battleship you are showing as transiting the Panama Canal is not the Deutschland herself, but one of her sister ships of the same class, either the Schlesien or the Schleswig-Holstein.  

Deutschland or course means "Germany" so it's not surprising that the Germans gave that name to the first of their new pocket battleships since no other ship at that time bore that name. It of course, being the first of it's type, gave it's name to the entire class of vessels that would follow.   

In addition to the two ships listed above, the Germans had the following additional battleships on hand in 1931.

Hannover - Deutschland Class - Active service but would be placed in reserve by the end of the year. 

Elsas - Braunschweig Class (similar in most respects to the Deutschland class) - In reserve.

Hessen - Braunschweig Class - Active service

 

 

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
4 minutes ago, SgtBeltfed said:

For example, the Germans always referred to them as Panzerschiffe, never as Battleships, Pocket Battleships, Battlecruisers, or Cruisers, probably just to confuse the issue as to what they really were.

This is why I just straight always refer to them as Pocket Battleships.  Panzerschiffe was a deliberate misdirection, and when the Pocket Battleships were commissioned, they had more firepower than their own Battleships.  Even by the start of WWII, these ships outgunned half of Germany's Battleship fleet.  No sense being coy about the firepower these ships had or the danger they posed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,257 battles
2 hours ago, Sventex said:

So correct me if I'm wrong, but in 1931, Germany had only 2 Battleships, both Deutschland-class.  But then that year they launched the Deutschland-class Deutschland, the Panzerschiffe Pocket Battleship Heavy Cruiser.  At her commissioning in 1933, the Deutschland would have been the most heavily armed ship in the German Navy.  But why call it Deutschland-class if their two heaviest units already had the same class name?  This sounds so terribly confusing.  Weren't class names suppose to prevent this kind of confusion?  What was the reasoning behind it?

Deutschland-class at the Panama Canal, 1938

Schlesien_Panama.jpg

 

Deutschland-class on non-intervention patrol in 1938.

Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1973-077-63,_Panze

FTFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,257 battles
5 minutes ago, Sventex said:

This is why I just straight always refer to them as Pocket Battleships.  Panzerschiffe was a deliberate misdirection, and when the Pocket Battleships were commissioned, they had more firepower than their own Battleships.  Even by the start of WWII, these ships outgunned half of Germany's Battleship fleet.  No sense being coy about the firepower these ships had or the danger they posed.

There has never been a naval term "pocket battleship".  They were nothing but overgunned heavy cruisers.  It gets incredibly annoying seeing people use this bull crap term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
5 minutes ago, Sventex said:

This is why I just straight always refer to them as Pocket Battleships.  Panzerschiffe was a deliberate misdirection, and when the Pocket Battleships were commissioned, they had more firepower than their own Battleships.  Even by the start of WWII, these ships outgunned half of Germany's Battleship fleet.  No sense being coy about the firepower these ships had or the danger they posed.

 

1 minute ago, Crucis said:

FTFY

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
238
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,311 posts
9,389 battles
7 minutes ago, Sventex said:

This is why I just straight always refer to them as Pocket Battleships.  Panzerschiffe was a deliberate misdirection, and when the Pocket Battleships were commissioned, they had more firepower than their own Battleships.  Even by the start of WWII, these ships outgunned half of Germany's Battleship fleet.  No sense being coy about the firepower these ships had or the danger they posed.

Sometimes I think the misdirection was intended to keep them from being classified as cruisers, and to make them seem more impressive than they were and to try make Germany look like a world player. After All, the Royal Navy had 3 ships in service that were perfect for running them down and killing them, named HMS Renown, HMS Repulse and HMS Hood, who by definition were born cruiser killers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,342
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,175 posts
2,029 battles

Simple. The class name really didn't matter.

 

Of the five pre-dreadnoughts of the Deutschland-class, Pommern was sunk in 1916, Deutschland was scrapped in 1920, and Hannover was retired in 1935, initially to be a target ship, but instead just used to test explosives. She was scrapped towards the end of the war.

Of the two that served in WWII, Schlesien was a training ship Brough out for minor operations and bombardments, and Schleswig-Holstein served for carrying periods in a similar role. Neither surviving ship was considered a frontline combatant, and no one was going to mix up the two.

 

Thus, when the first replacement ship was laid down in 1931, the rebirth of the Germany navy as a fighting force, there were probably few qualms with using the name Deutschland, and I doubt anyone cared what confuse might be caused by the class name. It's not like there was much in the way of a credible force in the remaining pre-dreadnoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
7 minutes ago, Phoenix_jz said:

It's not like there was much in the way of a credible force in the remaining pre-dreadnoughts.

They were the best ships Germany had and would have been a considerable threat to Germany's neighbors, chiefly Poland and the Nordic states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[JFSOC]
Members
908 posts
2,583 battles

Sometimes, a class of ships is laid down but the name ship of the class turns out to not be the first one completed.  I think it's as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,007
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,015 posts
11,538 battles
1 hour ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Sometimes I think the misdirection was intended to keep them from being classified as cruisers, and to make them seem more impressive than they were and to try make Germany look like a world player. After All, the Royal Navy had 3 ships in service that were perfect for running them down and killing them, named HMS Renown, HMS Repulse and HMS Hood, who by definition were born cruiser killers.

They were all re-classified as cruisers after the Graf Spee was defeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,257 battles
2 hours ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Sometimes I think the misdirection was intended to keep them from being classified as cruisers, and to make them seem more impressive than they were and to try make Germany look like a world player. After All, the Royal Navy had 3 ships in service that were perfect for running them down and killing them, named HMS Renown, HMS Repulse and HMS Hood, who by definition were born cruiser killers.

Actually, any misdirection by the Germans during this period was in the other direction.  Hence the reason for 11" guns on the Scharnhorsts.  They didn't want to scare the other nations into another BB arms race.  They wanted to get these ships in under the radar, as it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,433
[REVY]
Members
6,010 posts
5,102 battles
5 hours ago, Murotsu said:

Sometimes, a class of ships is laid down but the name ship of the class turns out to not be the first one completed.  I think it's as simple as that.

Looking at the build order, the Deutschland and the Deutschland were laid down and launched first of their respectively classes, with no unusual delays.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
612
[GUYS]
Alpha Tester
2,699 posts
3,247 battles
18 hours ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

Might be because they are different classes of ships, so if you have Deutschland Class BBs then maybe you can have Deutschland class Panzerchiffs or CAs?

I know USN had the Alaska Class CAs, but later had a sub named Alaska.

 

USS Alaska (CB-1) scrapped: 1960

USS Alaska (SSBN-732) laid down: 9 March '83

 

You cannot compare them as they were not in service at the same time.

20 hours ago, AVR_Project said:

It's their boat, and their navy.. They set their own rules. In WW2, the US had 2 each of Lexington, Yorktown, and Hornet. Go figure...

USS Lexington (CV-2): Sunk  8 May. '42

USS Lexington (CV-16) Commissioned 17 Feb, '43

 They were not in service at the same time.

USS Yorktown (CV-5) Sunk 7 June '42

USS York Town (CV-10) Commissioned 15 April '43

They were not in service at the same time.

USS Hornet (CV-8) Sunk 26 October, '42

USS Hornet (CV-12)  Commissioned 29 November '43

Like every other ship you listed, they were not in service at the same time and as such none of the ships can be directly compared to Germany's multiple Deutschland classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×