Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (4) 1 [2] 3 4   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Romanian Pocket Battleships
Andreas von Mach
Posted: November 03, 2003 08:46 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 138
Member No.: 84
Joined: August 19, 2003



Marine Rundschau Projekt 1914
6 cruisers 4000t 2x8in guns
12 destroyers
4 monitors (Danube)
8 patrol boats (Danube)
PM
Top
Andreas von Mach
Posted: November 03, 2003 08:55 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 138
Member No.: 84
Joined: August 19, 2003



Weyer 1900 ,Jane 1905/06 and Les Flottes de Combat 1909 repeated the 1899 Programm
(see my previous mail)

6 coast battleships 3500t
4 destroyers 300t
12 torpedoboats 80t
8 river monitors 500t
12 riverine TBs 40t
8 motor boats 12t (armed with torpedoes)

Morskoy Sbornik 1896 listed followings ships planned
2 coast battleships
5 cruisers ELISABETA class
PM
Top
toniyona
Posted: November 03, 2003 11:38 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 21
Member No.: 58
Joined: July 25, 2003



Mr. von Mach:
Most interesting!
Anything from the late 30's?
Thank-you once again.
PM
Top
Andreas von Mach
Posted: November 04, 2003 01:31 am
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 138
Member No.: 84
Joined: August 19, 2003



I have checked
Les Flottes de Combat of 1920s-1940s
and some of
Janes Fighting Ships of 1930s (not all till now)
no any new infos :cry:
PM
Top
toniyona
Posted: November 05, 2003 12:13 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 21
Member No.: 58
Joined: July 25, 2003



Mr. von Mach:
Thank-you for trying and you get an "A" for effort.
Hopefully Mr. Craciunoiu will weigh in with more information from the Romanian article he cited earlier.
PM
Top
Andreas von Mach
Posted: November 05, 2003 10:54 am
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 138
Member No.: 84
Joined: August 19, 2003



Hi toniyona!

It will be for me very interesting to know , which
of these programs were really officialy signed and
when, which were only used for propaganda goals
and which were clear speculation.

Many athors copied them without source tracing.
PM
Top
Andreas von Mach
Posted: November 12, 2003 08:15 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 138
Member No.: 84
Joined: August 19, 2003



Nautilus 1914 discussed Plann of 1914 already mentioned by me.
According to it the Plann was of the beginning 1913., of them already 4 destroyers were ordered by Pattison at Neapel.
At the end of 1913 an Romanian officer proposed to built insteed of
6 cruisers and rest of 8 destroyers, four 7500t coast battleships similar to the Swedish SVERIGE. It was suggested that such ships could go upstream of Danube up to Braila and could also go into every Romanian harbour.
PM
Top
toniyona
Posted: November 14, 2003 04:19 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 21
Member No.: 58
Joined: July 25, 2003



Mr. von Mach:
Once again many thanks.
Now if we could just get more information for plans (dreams) during the inter war period.
PM
Top
dead-cat
Posted: November 17, 2003 03:07 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



QUOTE

Accoprdigly to Romania Miltara in 1914  
Cpt. Mihuutsu designed a battleships for the lack Sea:  
13000t 117x22x8m  
10600-11000ihp=16-17kts  
800t coal  
4x305 (2xII)  
4x203mm (casamates)  
12x150  
5TT  


these are specs. for a pre-dreadnought. intresting that someone still thought in 1914 that such a ship could counterweight the russian dreadnoughts ...
PMYahoo
Top
Andreas von Mach
Posted: November 17, 2003 08:05 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 138
Member No.: 84
Joined: August 19, 2003



1) Perheps there was a drawing in this paper?
2) Is the name of Mihuutsu correct ?
3) Were the Russians considered as an enemies or Turks, or Bulgar before WW I ?
4) What was the same calculation in 1930s?
PM
Top
dead-cat
Posted: November 18, 2003 08:49 am
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



of course, i didn't object the accuracy of the specs. the name would probably be without the second "u".

the specs given 1914 are clearly specs for a pre-dreadnought. it's even weaker than the King Edward VII/Lord Nelson class. i allways thought after everybody completed their last pre-dreadnought under construction since 1906 the obsolescence of this type was worldwide recognized.

even if the turks were considered the enemy, they aquired the Goeben 1914 which , albeit a battlecruiser, is superior by any means to this spec.
if the specs were drawn before turning over the Goeben to turkey, it's even worse, because the turks ordered 1910 a "real" dreadnought in the UK (Erin) which was completed Aug. 1914.
PMYahoo
Top
Tiornu
Posted: November 19, 2003 06:44 am
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 83
Member No.: 75
Joined: August 08, 2003



"Mihuutsu"--looks Finnish to me. Is that possible?
The Swedes went ahead and built a design that was much smaller than this one, and it proved sufficient for its role.
PM
Top
dead-cat
Posted: November 19, 2003 09:02 am
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



i don't want to hijack this thread and bring it to the realm of offtopic but:

the swedes didn't see in combat in the 20th century. the swedish design (even the "Sverige" (launched 1915 i think) class) was a "panzerskepp" which is more comparable to an upgunned armored cruiser, but not a battleship. it couldn't and wouldn't stand in a fight against any post 1910 russian(or german) battlecruiser even.
PMYahoo
Top
Tiornu
Posted: November 19, 2003 07:24 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 83
Member No.: 75
Joined: August 08, 2003



"the swedes didn't see in combat in the 20th century." Exactly!
These ships are coast defense designs; they do not have to "stand up" to enemy battleships because they form only part of a defensive system. The Germans were thoroughly aware that they could not attack Sweden by sea because of the Sveriges and the rest of the coast defense system.
PM
Top
dead-cat
Posted: November 20, 2003 09:00 am
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



the specs said "battleship" and not "coastal battleship" which are 2 diffrent things.
in case of a german attack on sweden by sea, the coastal defences (coastal battleships included) would have suffered much the same fate as the russian defences on Ösel and Dagö during operation Albion 1917

all this apart from the fact that a german attack on sweden wouldn't have made sense.
PMYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (4) 1 [2] 3 4  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0193 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]