Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 79 of 90  [ 900 posts ]  Go to page « 177 78 79 80 8190 »
Author Message
LEUT_East
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: April 27th, 2012, 10:59 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 923
Joined: December 29th, 2011, 7:27 am
Location: Queensland, Australia
I am really loving this thread (probably my favorite to date). The levels of creativity here is amazing and although not practical at times these designs are a real joy to see and I look forward to every new post.

_________________
There is no "I" in TEAM but there is a ME

[ img ]
______________________
Current Worklist:
Redrawing my entire AU after a long absence from Shipbucket


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
WhyMe
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: April 27th, 2012, 4:22 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 1616
Joined: November 12th, 2010, 4:27 pm
Location: California, USA
Contact: Website
Nice coat of arms! And the ship too.

_________________
Worklist: Portuguese Navy and Barnegat class seaplane tenders


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
erik_t
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: April 27th, 2012, 8:43 pm
Offline
Posts: 2936
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Location: Midwest US
Thiel wrote:
Neither are workable. They have the same problems, but in the Passau's case it's aggravated by a small ammunition supply. And when you have a CEP measured in tens of miles on a windless day you're going to need a lot ofrounds to hit anything.
It would be plenty useful as a terror weapon, but you don't need many rounds to scare people. USN service showed that you could pretty reasonably carry, oh, a dozen V-1s or similar on a heavy cruiser with no more ship impact than an aircraft hangar.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ashley
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: April 28th, 2012, 7:02 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
The idea was to hit a couple of targets over a distance meant secure until this moment. Sure it will not work until the V1M is guided anyhow on its last mile. Video control isn't that far in 1946 so someone with visual contact on the targets has to guide it by radio. A group of well hidden subs could do that. Yes, I know how difficult it would have been to sneak in an area like Scapa Flow. Maybe the attack would be successful for 1/2 hour until counter measures against the incoming missiles and/or their guidance can deflect the attack. That would be enough to get in 20 missiles. And if only 50% of them do serious damage you still have 10 hits on targets at will. Again, I absolutely agree, that an unguided V1 is useless. But the shown case could work.

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: April 28th, 2012, 10:10 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
That's a lot of surfaced subs sitting around for a couple of hours. Especially in a world were the solution to an unknown radar contact is two destroyers and a flight of patrol bombers filled to the brim with depth charges and heavy MGs.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: April 28th, 2012, 4:52 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Thiel has a point. Even a Britain on the brink of defeat would have pretty advanced ASW assets that would toast a surfaced boat. Admittedly the "agent" idea makes more sense - but the logistics to insert one in, with the proper equipment to control these things, would be staggering.

Plus I'm not convinced that you can up the speed of a V1M by as much as you're claiming, not without a big turbojet (for the time). Plus even so heavy AA-kit would still be potentially problematic.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
emperor_andreas
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: May 9th, 2012, 10:27 pm
Offline
Posts: 3910
Joined: November 17th, 2010, 8:03 am
Location: Corinth, MS USA
Contact: YouTube
I agree with LEUT_East...this is probably my favorite thread on this forum aside from any IJN or passenger liner threads that pop up. I still can't wait to read the official history of this AU!

-Matt

_________________
[ img ]
MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ashley
Post subject: Grossflugzeugkreuzer Ludendorff 1940 / 1945Posted: May 16th, 2012, 10:41 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
The Z-plan brought up the idea of a hybrid warship appearing in the constructions department of the Kriegsmarine. The idea was to build a ship that could provide both, air cover for other Kriegsmarine units (including themselves) and were still usable for conventional commerce raiding. Therefore, a combination of an aircraft carrier and a cruiser/battleship was thought to be a solution for this task. The project never had a high priority, but with war coming closer one ship was finally finished in spring 1940, the 'Ludendorff'. She took part in the western campaign without battle action.
She was equipped was two triple 28cm turrets and four triple 15cm turrets. Her airwing was 31 units (9 x Ju-87 divebomber, 10 x Fi-167 torpedobomber, 12 x Me-109 E fighter)
[ img ]

The Ludendorff in 1945. 2cm quads are change to 3cm, airwing contains now Fw-190 fighters and additional Weserflug VTOLs. In 1946 she saw action at northern atlantic where 34 freighters and 2 destroyers were sunk by her. She missed the to Canada fleeing UBB HMS Superb only shortly.
In 1947 and 1948 she was placed in pacific waters for hunting down british ships and rebels. Indonesian divers managed to place some mines at her hull that did major damage. She was repaired so far she could float but never left the bay of bengal again. In 1958 she was scrapped.
[ img ]

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Biancini1995
Post subject: Re: Kriegsmarine 1946, second approachPosted: May 16th, 2012, 12:56 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 744
Joined: August 19th, 2011, 7:54 pm
Nice Battlecarrier Ashley it will have more "Heavy"battlecariers?

_________________
Verusea Alternative Universe is starting to build up.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Ashley
Post subject: GrossflugzeugkreuzerPosted: May 16th, 2012, 1:27 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 582
Joined: August 17th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Gone to hell
The 'Ludendorff' is only effective if there are no superior enemies. It does not have the guns to fight a fullsize BB or even a BC. The airwing can't go on a fullsize carrier, its airwing with about 30 aircraft allover is not large enough. Equipped with superior jets it might equal larger airwings like on Essex or Implacable.
A CA with some lucky hits could defeat her for the minimal armor at the carrier section. It's the common problem of all those hybrid ships. They can do all missions, but none of them really good.

_________________
This is a serious forum. Do not laugh. Do not post nonsens. Do not be kiddish. At least, not all the time.
Current work list:
go on playing dead


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 79 of 90  [ 900 posts ]  Return to “Alternate Universe Designs” | Go to page « 177 78 79 80 8190 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]