The Wells Brothers' Battleship Index: Debunking the Later H-class Battleships 25 July 2021  
USN the Wells Brothers' Battleship Index 

Debunking the Later H-class Battleships

ByLawrence H. Wells & David R. Wells

Version 1.0

British (RN)
Japanese (IJN)
German (HSF & KM)
Russian & Soviet
French
Italian

Introduction

The H-class was a series of never-completed German battleships from the World War II era. Two (of a planned six) were begun to the original H-39 design, but their construction was quickly abandoned after the start of the war. While some design work continued, no further actual construction was done.

We are continually surprised at the amount of misinformation on the web about the German H-class designs, especially the later evolutions, and so we have written this page to present the better information. We make no pretense that our page is the result of original research. It is, rather, a clear presentation of the "conventional wisdom" about these never-completed battleships. In this case, the "conventional wisdom" is clearly correct, and is quite well documented.

Most of our information comes from five sources:

  1. Dulin & Garzke "Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War Two"
  2. Breyer, Sigfried: "Battleships and Battleruisers 1905-1970"
  3. Gröner , Erich et al. "German Warships 1815-1945"
  4. Anonymous, Marine Rundschau 1956
  5. Campbell, John: "Naval Weapons of World War Two"

Interestingly enough, Breyer is probably the most useful. While his book is a bit old, and significant research has been done since it was published, it still covers the H-class and the later design studies remarkably well.

The imaginary ships at the end of this page are obviously not documented in offical or otherwise reliable sources. We have had to rely in many cases on old data collected from defunct websites, and personal memory.

The Earlier Designs H-39 through H-41

The earlier H-class designs were mostly practical and realistic. H-39 was certainly buildable, and would have been a reasonably good battleship for its day, though many think the armor protection inadequate. The H-39 design was derived from the earlier Bismarck-class, though there were some significant differences.

The most obvious difference is the main guns. The Bismarck-class had 38cm guns, whereas the H-class had 40.6 cm/52 SK C/34 guns, or in the case of H-41, the closely related 42 cm/48 SK C/40 gun.

Another major difference was propulsion. The H-39 and H-41 designs were to be powered by diesel engines instead of steam turbines, but still on three shafts, as in previous classes. The two H-40 designs, which seem to be something of a tangent from the series, would have had a combination of diesel and steam turbine engines.

The hangar and aircraft arrangements were also quite different from the Bismarck-class. The air intakes, mufflers, and exhausts of the diesel engines, combined with the need for a second funnel and boat storage, precluded the use of a transverse catapult amidships.1 The H-class would have had a large hangar forward of Turret "Caesar", and a catapult mounted below the guns of the aft-most turret. The catapult position seems particularly impractical, as the aft-most turret would have to either raise its guns or rotate the turret in order to launch aircraft.

The secondary and dual purpose armament remained the same through all versions: Twelve 150mm/55 SK C/28 guns in six twin mounts, plus sixteen 105mm/65 SK C/33 guns in eight twin mounts. Note that the 105mm/65 SK C/33 mounts were the newer, heavier enclosed Dop. L. C/38 mounts, rather than the open C/31 and C/37 mounts used on the preceeding Bismarck-class.

Overall, the armor protection was probably inadequate for a ship of this size and power. The earlier H-class designs called for a thinner belt armor than the preceeding Bismarck-class. (30 cm vs 32 cm), though apparently a bit taller. Apparently, the German designers believed that the armor belt plus the sloped armor behind it would give the ships' vital spaces the equivalent of a 50 cm belt. 2 The experience of the Bismarck suggests that this was probably not so. Further, the horizontal armor was not as thick as that on some of the H-class' contemporaries. On the other hand, they would have had relatively good torpedo protection and good subcompartmentation.

All of the H-class designs called for six underwater 533mm (21 inch) torpedo tubes built into the forward part of the hull.

Design Length in meters Beam in meters Draft in meters Standard Displacement in metric tons Design Displacement in metric tons Full Load Displacement in metric tons Main Armament Propulsion
H-39 266 (wl), 277.75 (oa) 37 10.024 (standard)

11.2 (full load)

53,489 58,543 63,596 eight 16"/L52 (406mm) SK C/34 guns in four twin turrets Twelve MAN MZ65/95 diesels, three shafts, 165,000 MHP
H-40A 270 (wl) 37.6 10.02 55,700 58,500 65,600 six 16"/L52 (406mm) SK C/34 guns in three twin turrets Eight MAN MZ65/95 diesels on outer shafts, steam turbine on center shaft, three shafts, 230,000 MHP , 30.4 knots
H-40B 287 (wl) 39.2 10.02 63,000 66,000 70,000 eight 16"/L52 (406mm) SK C/34 guns in four twin turrets MAN VZ42/58 diesels on outer shafts, steam turbine on center shaft, three shafts, 240,000 MHP 30.4 knots
H-41 275 (wl) 39 11.1 (design)

12.15 (full load)

64,000 68,800 76,000 eight 16.54"/L48 (420mm) SK C/40 guns in four twin turrets Twelve MAN MZ65/95 diesels, three shafts, 165,000 MHP 28.8 knots

The Later Designs H-42 through H-44

The later designs were little more than studies. Indeed, they were not designed by the Kriegsmarine's own Warship Construction Office (Konstruktions Amt, or K-Amt), but rather by a New Ship Construction Committee (schiffsneubaukommission). This latter organization, headed by Admiral Karl Topp, was supposed to coordinate requirements and materials with Reichsminister for Armament and Munitions Albert Speer. The designs were primarily intended to figure out how big a ship would have to be to support the armor needed to protect against increasingly large bombs. 8 These designs also investigated increasingly large torpedo protection schemes. There was no intention of actually building these ships, and each successive design became less practical. They were never even discussed with the Naval High Command.

As with the earlier H-class battleships, the secondary and dual purpose armament remained the same through all versions: Twelve 150mm guns in six twin mounts, plus sixteen 105mm guns in eight twin mounts.

Another feature common to these three later designs is the propulsion system. All would have had 270,000 mhp on four shafts, with MAN MZ 65/95 diesels on the outer shafts, and steam turbines on the inboard shafts.

Armor thicknesses were also remarkably similar. All three featured 33 cm (13") of deck armor and 38cm (15") of belt armor. The deck armor would have been on three decks, 6 cm plus 14 cm plus 13 cm. Most accounts suggest that H-43 and H-44 would have had "deeper" armor belts than H-42.

Also of some interest, these designs shared a "tunnel" stern. Breyer writes: "From this 'H-42' design onwards, efforts were made to give rudders and propellers maximum protection by extending the stern of the ship in the shape of two side fins forming a kind of tunnel and protecting the rudder and propellers from the sides. This design was to offer protection against the kind of fateful torpedo hits sustaned by Bismarck. The effect such a stern would have on manoeuvrability of so large a ship was not looked into and extensive model tests would have been necessary before such a project could have been carried out." 9 While Breyer refers to his drawings, to our eyes, the design is not clear. The wording suggests a similarity to the "Twin Skeg" arrangement on the final generation of American battleships, but we cannot confirm this from Breyer's drawings.

It would have been very difficult for the Germans to launch ships of such immense size in the traditional manner. Apparently, to the extent that there was any intent of building them at all after the war, they intended to build them in drydocks. Modern American supercarriers are built this way. Apparently, the Germans did begin to build such drydocks in World War II. 10

Aircraft arrangements were very similar to those on the earlier H-class

There is some dispute about the main armament on some of these designs. Dulin & Garzke 11 and Breyer 12 agree that H-42 was designed with 42 cm guns, and H-43 and H-44 were designed with 50.8 cm (20") guns. Groener discusses a 48 cm (18.8") gun for H-42 and H-43. 13 Apparently, the 50.8 cm gun was not related to Krupp's 53 cm Gerät 36 gun. From what little we have found on this putative 50.8 cm gun, it was only used for a size estimate. Neither the gun nor the turret were ever designed in detail.

Aside from the main armament, the main difference in these ships seems to be the depth of the torpedo protection. The length of the ship had to increase proportionally to the ever increasing beam.
Design Length in meters Beam in meters Draft in meters Standard Displacement in metric tons 14 15 Design Displacement in metric tons 15 16 Full Load Displacement in metric tons 17 18 Main Armament Propulsion:
H-42 305 (wl) 42.8 19.15 83,265 90,000 98,000 eight 16.54"/L48 (420mm) SK C/40 guns in four twin turrets Eight MAN MZ65/95 diesels on outer shafts, steam turbine on center shaft, four shafts, 270,000 MHP , 31.9 knots
H-43 330 (wl) 48 20 103,342 111,000 120,000 eight 20"/L52 (508mm) 34 guns in four twin turrets Eight MAN MZ65/95 diesels on outer shafts, steam turbine on center shaft, four shafts, 270,000 MHP , 30.9 knots
H-44 345 (wl) 51.5 21 122,000 131,000 141,500 eight 20"/L52 (508mm) 34 guns in four twin turrets Eight MAN MZ65/95 diesels on outer shafts, steam turbine on center shaft, four shafts, 270,000 MHP , 29.8 knots
Note: While "standard" displacement was rigidly defined by the Washington Treaty of 1921-22, "design" displacement was a unique German measurement. Standard displacement included everything except fuel and reserve feed water. Design displacement added the weight of a 40% load of fuel. 19

The (mostly) Fictional Designs from Wargaming

Let us state for the record that there is absolutely nothing wrong with making up purely fictional ship designs for wargames. We do it all the time. It can be fun. It only becomes a problem when people start to believe that these designs were real.

Since these are fictional designs, it is difficult to impossible to find good, reliable references on them. We are forced to rely on saved pictures and saved bits of text from defunct websites, as well as personal memories.

So, here we present some more-or-less fictional designs that readers might find on the internet.

Thanks To......

The authors would like to thank friend who wishes to remain anonymous honoring the anonymous author of the Marine Rundschau 1956 publication for his help obtaining and interpreting several rather obscure old articles.

Also, thanks to Michael Emmerich for advice and support.

Version History

Version Date
Draft 0 0.0 16 July 2020
Draft 1 0.1 21 July 2020
Draft 2 0.2 15 October 2020
Version 1 1.0 25 July 2021

Footnotes

1 Dulin, Robert O. & Garzke, William H. "Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War Two" Annapolis, Naval Instutute Press, 1985, pp 314

2 Dulin & Garzke, op. cit, pp 342

3 Dulin & Garzke, op. cit, pp 339

4 Dulin & Garzke, op. cit, pp 316

5 Gröner, Erich "German Warships 1815-1945 Volume One: Major Surface Vessels", Annapolis, Naval Institute Press, 1990, pp 38

6 Dulin & Garzke, op. cit, pp 319

7 Dulin & Garzke, op. cit, pp 320

8 Gröner, loc. cit.

9 Breyer, Siegfried: "Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970", (English translation by Alfred Kurti) New York, Doubleday & Company, 1973, New York, pp 316

10 Anonymous, "Marine Rundschau" (journal) October 1956 , pp 64

11 Dulin & Garzke, op. cit, pp 323

12 Breyer, loc. cit.

13 Gröner, loc. cit.

14 Breyer, op. cit. pp 261

15 Breyer, loc. cit.

16 Dulin & Garzke, loc. cit.

17 Breyer, loc. cit.

18 Dulin & Garzke, loc. cit.

19 Dulin & Garzke, loc. cit.

20 Dulin & Garzke, op. cit. pp 326

21 Philbin, Tobias R. III "The Lure of Neptune " Columbia, University of South Carolina Press, 1994, pp 46

Copyright ©2020 David R. Wells. All rights reserved. 


Click Here to return to the Wells Brothers' Battleships Index
Click Here to return to the Wells Brothers' Home Page