Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
LL_JuneBug

WW2's largest Destroyer, or really a Cruiser?

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

167
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
524 posts
10,675 battles

There were 3 main concept designs for the Plan Z Spahkruezer. 1938, and 1939 that shared the same hull dimensions. 152 meters over all length with 16 and a half meter width. The 1940 design was designed to be 162 meters overall length, and 16 meters wide. When compared to the M class light cruiser which was to be 163 meters overall length it is realized that for destroyer dimensions they would have been extremely long ships. They would have been fairly fast at 37 to 40 knots. They would have had extreme range ( around 12,000 Nautical Miles ) at cruising speed.

They were oversized to perform the mission of escorting larger ships and to recon ahead of the battle group. They were designed to carry on dual turret on the bow and two on the stern to facilitate a more strategic withdraw. They wanted to mount a catapult and 2 scout planes aboard the 1939 design, and possibly the 1940 design. To save weight they considered removing the torpedo armament, even though the ships would have been large enough to carry both. The ships could have been easily up armored because of their size. 

These ships would have been ideal for mine laying missions, as they could have carried between 50 to 80 mines onboard and more if needed directly for that kind of mission. 

Spahkruezer1938a.thumb.png.b6c3b681bfa014e21ef2c46797b66541.png

It took me about 4 days to model out the hull.

Spahkruezer1938b.thumb.png.91b1df56cb481e6e4641e39c7f2d1f5f.png

Spahkruezer1938c.thumb.png.13696921ad348a8b05b9d306ed523907.png

The top and side you can see how canoe looking the 1938 design appeared. These ships were to have 2 Man 6 cylinder engines

that would provide propulsion for cruise and normal operations. A high pressure steam turbine would ad power for combat operations,

or missions where they need speed. This meant that these ships would need to carry Fuel Oil, and Diesel, or carry an onboard refinery 

machinery, like Graff Spee did.

Spahkruezer1938d.thumb.png.5db39c5151a8be527119c9537c85a667.png

Notice the 3 screw set up.

Spahkruezer1938e.thumb.png.12328d8e1ce2ba64ef4017981ae6b1af.pngSpahkruezer1938f.thumb.png.07b936adcd584a0b6326807b2d1de332.pngSpahkruezer1938g.thumb.png.eb4f264c7c55aa24bdd330c8bce3a26a.png

The railing done, and getting ready for putting on the super structer and equipment.

 

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,663
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,862 posts
16,433 battles

WOW that's some awesome work there buddy!:cap_like:

 

From what I've read. traditionally, the average ship was classified by tonnage and any ship over 5k tons was a considered light cruiser. and by the looks of this ship so far, it looks like it would be well around 5-6k tons

 

also for those who are wondering here's a rough list of the tonnage catagories during the WW1/WW2.:fish_book:

 

under 500T: patrol boat

500-1,000T: corvette 

1000-2,000T: frigate/Destroyer escort

2000-4,000T: Destroyer

5000-8,000T: Light cruiser

8000-15,000T: heavy cruiser

15,000-30,000T battlecruiser

25,000-30,000T+: battleship 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles

I personally list her as a DD. Her design was heavily inspired by the 1936 class design (in particular 1936C). Tonnage wise while she is well above that of your average German Destroyer, it was still noticably below that of the Light Cruisers Germany fielded. So not many conclusions to be drawn there.

5 hours ago, BladedPheonix said:

under 500T: patrol boat

500-1,000T: corvette 

1000-2,000T: frigate/Destroyer escort

2000-4,000T: Destroyer

5000-8,000T: Light cruiser

8000-15,000T: heavy cruiser

 15,000-30,000T battlecruiser

25,000-30,000T+: battleship 

This kind of classification is always a bit problematic.

For example the Hatsuharu-class as built was 1,900 tons at max. But I don‘t think one would want to classify them as DEs.

Of course that is a small deviation, though there are (as one would hope) bigger deviations like the Cleveland class, which with 11,700 tons standard would significantly break out of the norm. Same story for those Mogami-class cruisers that were up to 11,200 tons standard, even when being Light Cruisers. Here it kinda shows that using caliber is a better way to differenciate between light and heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,877
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
3,835 posts
11,601 battles

That's nice work make sure to post her when she's done !! +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
204 posts
4,994 battles

It seems like a lot of ships have been reclassified at various points. The U.S. once had ships called "destroyer leaders", but those were reclassified as frigates back in the 50's.  They were then reclassified as either destroyers or cruisers, while "destroyer escorts" were reclassified as frigates.  The Fubuki was originally called a "special type destroyer", but is generally considered the first modern destroyer.  Italy had created "scout cruisers" which were essentially large destroyers.  There were also "flotilla leaders", like Kuma and Atlanta, that were essentially small cruisers designed to outfit a flotilla of destroyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,663
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,862 posts
16,433 battles
3 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

I personally list her as a DD. Her design was heavily inspired by the 1936 class design (in particular 1936C). Tonnage wise while she is well above that of your average German Destroyer, it was still noticably below that of the Light Cruisers Germany fielded. So not many conclusions to be drawn there.

This kind of classification is always a bit problematic.

For example the Hatsuharu-class as built was 1,900 tons at max. But I don‘t think one would want to classify them as DEs.

Of course that is a small deviation, though there are (as one would hope) bigger deviations like the Cleveland class, which with 11,700 tons standard would significantly break out of the norm. Same story for those Mogami-class cruisers that were up to 11,200 tons standard, even when being Light Cruisers. Here it kinda shows that using caliber is a better way to differenciate between light and heavy.

well I did say "rough estimate":Smile_unsure: 

and yes gun caliber is way better for telling cruiser types apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
167
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
524 posts
10,675 battles

The 1938/39 ships were suppose to be about 5,600 tons. The 1940 design was suppose to be 7,500 tons, so yea thats why the Germans called them Reconnaissance Cruisers. 

LOL, the joke and or supposition was that it was an oversized destroyer, and or an undersized cruiser. I like how wide of a turning circle they would have had. They would have had a lot of speed, but a large turning circle. Like I stated before it would have been easy to up the armament on them. 

Spahkruezer1938-1a.thumb.png.401d58eb3ac1ad75b166469e5cdca936.png

Here is an angle shot after I put the bridge and forward 15cm turret on the hull. note how much area is on the front of the hull compared

to the destroyers that usually have them way more forward.

Spahkruezer1938-1b.thumb.png.f67200dcb1ca860076f57c4a852e9ed4.pngSpahkruezer1938-1c.thumb.png.513b3ecf3fdeba06f1ae381f40781728.png

Here you can see the multiple 37mm dual aa mounts. The quad 20mm aa mount just on the fore of the bridge and just aft of the  

15cm small dual turret. The 15cm dual mounts on the Battleships were the same guns but the turrets were quite larger and weighed 

a lot more. 

Spahkruezer1938-1d.thumb.png.aae640f484ab1d9b40d536da1520f72d.png

A profile shot of the front.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
167
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
524 posts
10,675 battles

I did some more modeling on the stern and mid aft section.

Spahkruezer19382arough.thumb.png.5c9d496c5a7a595da5538c726584b368.png

I added in the large 88mm long range mounts. In 1938 these were considered sufficient. I'm sure later on they would have added at 

least 2 more of these.

Spahkruezer19382brough.thumb.png.65feac60a45f99ac5c7cd2aedb2689ea.png

The aft superstructure or part of it is added. I put on the 2-15cm super firing pair of turrets. These turrets were designed for destroyers

to be lighter and carry 128mm guns. It was noticed that they could be adapted to also mount the 150mm guns. These turrets were also

later designated to be used on the O class, and P class Battle Cruisers.

Spahkruezer19382crough.thumb.png.1bbb372fc1c0c020c14288965fcfa192.png

A close up of the 88mm turrets.

Spahkruezer19382drough.thumb.png.5b8a5c7d1e079db5710a5de1cead69a7.png

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
167
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
524 posts
10,675 battles

Some more work.

Spahkruezer19383arough.thumb.png.81f3e0e2e777e3a21383f94002f9cd32.png

added another range finder in the mid front.

Spahkruezer19383brough.thumb.png.391e391b2d0b0f77f5b2160f5b834de1.png

I outlined the guns on the ship. I still have a few small aa guns to ad.

Spahkruezer19383crough.thumb.png.13cab94b7e9bd28baca32fb2b09b5747.png

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,663
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,862 posts
16,433 battles

man this thing is looking better and better with each post, are you going to color it by chance?:fish_aqua:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
167
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
524 posts
10,675 battles
On 6/16/2019 at 2:41 PM, BladedPheonix said:

man this thing is looking better and better with each post, are you going to color it by chance?:fish_aqua:

Yes I do intend to texture it. I am weak on the texturing side of things, but I intend to start delving into it and get better. I have some plane models I'm working on for Brand X and I need to texture them in 4k so I can submit them for consideration for their use in game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
167
[WULUF]
Beta Testers
524 posts
10,675 battles

After about a week of messing with the Spahkruezer design I have it modeled to where it is done on the modeling side, and ready to start making LOD models and texturing it.

Spahkruezer19384A.thumb.png.e270c417271f573e60a9b117d2f99393.png

I made new stacks for it as the destroyer stack from Z23 was to small looking on the ship.

Spahkruezer19384B.thumb.png.633f58b721506ccc6e848ab6bc137d08.png

I played with the idea of putting both a catapult and 2 quad torpedo launchers onboard. The initial idea was for the 1938 design

to carry 2 - quintuple torpedo launchers between the stacks on the centerline. I think this would have been problematic due to the 

width of the ship. Having them on the sides like this would have been a better option, and as large as these ships turned out they 

could have also considered sub-decking them.

Spahkruezer19384C.thumb.png.d6c53b70d90b60da64e22ad1e000044e.png

Still fenagling with the arrangement at this point. I added life rafts under the catapult but dont want them to get in the way of the 

catapult, or the 88mm AA gun areas. I also put rafts on the main 15cm turret sides.

Spahkruezer19384D.thumb.png.4781049e24e06d6cce9fdd22d2d97990.png

I moved the cat forward and added a plane crane. I divided the deck life rafts to reduce the amount carried midships and I added 

12 on the bow where there was room. I have the main guns, and the cat and crane highlighted in orange and yellow for effect here.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,663
[FOXEH]
Alpha Tester
6,862 posts
16,433 battles

wow it looks like a smaller Nuremburg class.:fish_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
318
[BIER]
Members
463 posts
7,411 battles

Ship classification is all about mission purpose and capability, not tonnage, size, or anything else.

Whatever the ship's purpose was supposed to be, that's what it's designation is. You could have a 15,000 ton hull, but if it was designed (and equipped) solely as an ASW platform, well, that's probably a Frigate in modern terms.

Recently, it's gotten a bit bad, since navies are reluctant to use the Cruiser designation, despite ships that are plainly Cruiser-mission -designs (*cough* Flight 2+ DDG-51), and thus, we see a bunch of stuff squished into the Destroyer designation that doesn't belong there. The "Helicopter Destroyer" stuff of the JNSDF is perhaps the most egregious example of "we politicians don't want it called Y, so we'll pretend it's X" disease.

But at least prior to about 1980, classification was pretty much aligned tightly with mission capability.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×