A Z-Plan question

German Kriegsmarine 1935-1945.

Moderator: phylo_roadking

A Z-Plan question

Postby Freiritter » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:37 am

Hello all. My question relates to what the Z-Plan was to accomplish. Was it to achieve naval parity with Britain or another purpose?
User avatar
Freiritter
Associate
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 9:56 am
Location: Missouri, USA

Postby Sam H. » Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:53 am

I suspect it was more to challenge control of the seas in some limited aspect. I doubt Reader truely thought the Z-Plan would give Germany parity with England.
User avatar
Sam H.
Associate
 
Posts: 644
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 7:39 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Postby Dackelstaffel » Thu Jan 15, 2004 12:10 pm

Hi,

If Germany had reached the Z plan goals, the Royal navy should have been increased in the way. Don't forget, I mean if there was no war in 1939, the germans had to have, in first, a strong army because it was a continental country, in second a strong air force to protect the army, and in third only the navy. The Z plan could have been just a wishful thinking of german admirals.

So long
All we need it's a Dackel in each pocket.
User avatar
Dackelstaffel
Contributor
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:29 pm

Re: A Z-Plan question

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:49 am

The Goal of the German 'Z-Plan' was to build these ships and to challenge the RN and USN.
(a) Six battleships of 56,000 tons;
(b) Two battleships (Bismarck and Tirpitz) of 42,000 tons;
(c) Three pocket-battleships of 31,000 tons, mounting 15-inch guns,
with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau converted from 11-inch to 15-inch;
(d) Three pocket-battleships (Deutschland, Admiral Scheer, Graf Spee);
(e) Two aircraft-carriers (Graf Zeppelin, launched in 1938, plus one other);
(f) Five heavy cruisers (Hipper, Blucher, Prinz Eugen, Seydlitz, Lutzow);
(g) Forty-four light cruisers (of which six were already completed);
(h) Sixty-eight destroyers and ninety torpedo-boats;
(i) Some 249 U-boats-coastal, sea-going, and ocean-going.
______________________________________________________________
Total: 472 plan ships

Total cost: 33-billion RM
Total fuel: 8,000,000 tons
Total manpower: 201,000 crewmen
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: A Z-Plan question

Postby lwd » Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:34 am

Again without context or source your list has little value. Indeed parts of it are incorrect in any case. For example as has been pointed out before "pocket battleship" was not a naval term but a journalistic one. Certainly the KM didn't plan on building any such thing. Furthermore it's clear from just a quick examination of the forces that the fleet list you've given would not be capable of really challenging either the RN or the USN as they existed in 1941 much less as they would be in later years especially once the German naval build up became obvious. And that's not even getting into their ability to face the "RN and USN". Other questions of your list abound. For instance was it ever part of the Z-plan to upgrade the main battery of the twins? Certainly it was examined at one point and rejected as not worth it. At the time this was considered however I believe the Bismarcks were if not already in commision nearly so and would hardly have been part of the Z-plan. Like wise the panzershiffe were built well before there was a Z-plan. Then what difference do you see between a "sea-going" and an "ocean-going" u-boat? The final question for this post is just what the list has to do with the discussion to date? Certainly a list could be used to try and make a point but lacking that it is simply irrelevant to the discussion and a distraction. I.e. it appears to me you are adding noise rather than signal.
lwd
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: A Z-Plan question

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:06 pm

lwd wrote:Again without context or source your list has little value. Indeed parts of it are incorrect in any case. For example as has been pointed out before "pocket battleship" was not a naval term but a journalistic one. Certainly the KM didn't plan on building any such thing. Furthermore it's clear from just a quick examination of the forces that the fleet list you've given would not be capable of really challenging either the RN or the USN as they existed in 1941 much less as they would be in later years especially once the German naval build up became obvious. And that's not even getting into their ability to face the "RN and USN". Other questions of your list abound. For instance was it ever part of the Z-plan to upgrade the main battery of the twins? Certainly it was examined at one point and rejected as not worth it. At the time this was considered however I believe the Bismarcks were if not already in commision nearly so and would hardly have been part of the Z-plan. Like wise the panzershiffe were built well before there was a Z-plan. Then what difference do you see between a "sea-going" and an "ocean-going" u-boat? The final question for this post is just what the list has to do with the discussion to date? Certainly a list could be used to try and make a point but lacking that it is simply irrelevant to the discussion and a distraction. I.e. it appears to me you are adding noise rather than signal.


Look lwd...The difference between 'sea-going' and 'ocean-going', is that in 'sea-going' it means that the U-boat can patrol near the shore only, for example in the English Channel and the Bay of Biscay, while in 'ocean-going' it can travel from Germany to the USA by crossing the Atlantic Ocean. What's wrong in using the term 'pocket-battleship'? Can you site some violations of the Freedom of the Press in the Bill of Rights? Look! You do not even know how to spell 'commission'. How will I believe you...You're always following me Ah?
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: A Z-Plan question

Postby lwd » Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:07 am

Why did you quote my entire post when you only replied to a couple of sections in it? This makes it harder to track the discussion and does nothing to increase clarity.
nebelwerferXXX wrote:
Look lwd...The difference between 'sea-going' and 'ocean-going', is that in 'sea-going' it means that the U-boat can patrol near the shore only, for example in the English Channel and the Bay of Biscay, while in 'ocean-going' it can travel from Germany to the USA by crossing the Atlantic Ocean.

Then what's the difference between a 'sea-going' and a coastal u-boat? I'm not saying that your defintions are not valid it's just that I don't think I've ever seen anyone break them into those groupings before. U-boat.net for instance uses the terms "coastal", "Atlantic", and "long range" (see: http://www.uboat.net/types/) where both of the latter two would appear to fit your defintion of "ocean-going". Did you get these defintions from a book or a web page?
What's wrong in using the term 'pocket-battleship'?

In general nothing. However if you are talking about navies producing ships it's best to use either their terminology or standard naval terminology. Furthermore the temr "pocket battleship" was a rather derogatory term used to describe a certeain small group of panzershiffe / heavy cruisers. Using it for vessels the Germans considered battleships or battlecruisers is rather misleading.
Can you site some violations of the Freedom of the Press in the Bill of Rights?

??? That simply doesn't make sense.
Look! You do not even know how to spell 'commission'.

I make typos and spelling errors on a fairly frequent basis. Usually however they don't interfere with comunication and I do try to correct them. That's not particularly relevant to this discussion however.
...You're always following me Ah?

Me following you? If you look at the older threads we've both posted on I think you'll see that rather the reverse could be argued. Actually it appears that we have similar interest. Furthermore you have asked some valid and interesting questions and supplies some wothwhile information. The problem is many of your posts are either or little or no relevance, repetitious, or lacking source or context. Correct these issues and many would look forward to your posts as it is at this point that's not the case.
lwd
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: A Z-Plan question

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:45 am

Code: Select all
nebelwerferXXX wrote:
Look lwd...The difference between 'sea-going' and 'ocean-going', is that in 'sea-going' it means that the U-boat can patrol near the shore only, for example in the English Channel and the Bay of Biscay, while in 'ocean-going' it can travel from Germany to the USA by crossing the Atlantic Ocean.

lwd wrote:
Then what's the difference between a 'sea-going' and a coastal u-boat? I'm not saying that your defintions are not valid it's just that I don't think I've ever seen anyone break them into those groupings before. U-boat.net for instance uses the terms "coastal", "Atlantic", and "long range" (see: http://www.uboat.net/types/) where both of the latter two would appear to fit your defintion of "ocean-going". Did you get these defintions from a book or a web page?


I used my own words. At least I know the English Language fluently.
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: A Z-Plan question

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:34 pm

The source of the 'Z-plan' ships listing is in this book:

Hitler's high seas fleet
copyright 1971 Richard Humble
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: A Z-Plan question

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:40 pm

Does the terms 'pocket-battleship' and the 'battle-cruiser' a slur for the German Navy? When it falls as a Libel Case?
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: A Z-Plan question

Postby lwd » Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:04 am

nebelwerferXXX wrote:
]nebelwerferXXX wrote:
Look lwd...The difference between 'sea-going' and 'ocean-going', is that in 'sea-going' it means that the U-boat can patrol near the shore only, for example in the English Channel and the Bay of Biscay, while in 'ocean-going' it can travel from Germany to the USA by crossing the Atlantic Ocean.

lwd wrote:
Then what's the difference between a 'sea-going' and a coastal u-boat? I'm not saying that your defintions are not valid it's just that I don't think I've ever seen anyone break them into those groupings before. U-boat.net for instance uses the terms "coastal", "Atlantic", and "long range" (see: http://www.uboat.net/types/) where both of the latter two would appear to fit your defintion of "ocean-going". Did you get these defintions from a book or a web page? [/code]
I used my own words. At least I know the English Language fluently.

It appears you created your own defintions as well. That is not necessarily bad but you need to make it clear when you do and just what they are. So again what's the difference between what you call "sea-going" and "coastal" u-boats? English fluency is rather irrelevant and the implications of your wording are are likely fallacious.
nebelwerferXXX wrote:Does the terms 'pocket-battleship' and the 'battle-cruiser' a slur for the German Navy? When it falls as a Libel Case?

Using inappropriate or ill defined terms especially in ways they were never used historically tends to obscure the substance of your posts. You could of course call a battleship a destroyer or vice versa but why would you want to do so? It's easy enough to missunderstand people on the internet even when people are trying to be clear why make it harder?
lwd
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: A Z-Plan question

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:55 am

Battle of the Brains:

I will use my own definition again of 'Sea-going' and 'Coastal'.
'Sea-going' again in my own words, it means that it's a sea-worthy vessel, while 'Coastal' in my own words means it's a brown-water vessel. It cruise near the shore.

You know I am a Registered Architect. Ask more questions...and I will answer it for you.
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: A Z-Plan question

Postby lwd » Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:20 am

nebelwerferXXX wrote:Battle of the Brains:

??? what's that suppose to mean?
I will use my own definition again of 'Sea-going' and 'Coastal'.
'Sea-going' again in my own words, it means that it's a sea-worthy vessel, while 'Coastal' in my own words means it's a brown-water vessel. It cruise near the shore.

Then you should prepare to be misunderstood on a frequent basis, especially when you don't clarify your defintions without repeated questioning. In any case the coastal boats were usually "sea-worthy" their problem was range. So how do your defintions match up with those of say uboat.net? Which classes do you put in what catagories?
You know I am a Registered Architect.

And that's suppose to be relevant how?
lwd
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: A Z-Plan question

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:59 am

lwd wrote:
nebelwerferXXX wrote:Battle of the Brains:

??? what's that suppose to mean?
I will use my own definition again of 'Sea-going' and 'Coastal'.
'Sea-going' again in my own words, it means that it's a sea-worthy vessel, while 'Coastal' in my own words means it's a brown-water vessel. It cruise near the shore.

Then you should prepare to be misunderstood on a frequent basis, especially when you don't clarify your defintions without repeated questioning. In any case the coastal boats were usually "sea-worthy" their problem was range. So how do your defintions match up with those of say uboat.net? Which classes do you put in what catagories?
You know I am a Registered Architect.

And that's suppose to be relevant how?


It's only a sub-title. To cut the story short, the terms 'sea-going' and 'ocean-going' did not come directly in my mouth. It's the language of the author of 'Hitler's high seas fleet' Mr. Richard Humble. Well being an Architect, whose favorite is World War II topics makes him a wide reader of books related to WW II and not only that I also draw German soldiers for may past time. Many of my drawings are best sellers. I am an expert designer of buildings in my country.
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: A Z-Plan question

Postby lwd » Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:01 am

nebelwerferXXX wrote:
lwd wrote:
nebelwerferXXX wrote:I will use my own definition again of 'Sea-going' and 'Coastal'.
'Sea-going' again in my own words, it means that it's a sea-worthy vessel, while 'Coastal' in my own words means it's a brown-water vessel. It cruise near the shore.

Then you should prepare to be misunderstood on a frequent basis, especially when you don't clarify your defintions without repeated questioning. In any case the coastal boats were usually "sea-worthy" their problem was range. So how do your defintions match up with those of say uboat.net? Which classes do you put in what catagories?
You know I am a Registered Architect.

And that's suppose to be relevant how?

... To cut the story short, the terms 'sea-going' and 'ocean-going' did not come directly in my mouth. It's the language of the author of 'Hitler's high seas fleet' Mr. Richard Humble.

First you say it's your defintions now you ascribe it to a book. You really should get your story strait. In any case what classes of u-boats were in which catagory?
Well being an Architect, whose favorite is World War II topics makes him a wide reader of books related to WW II and not only that I also draw German soldiers for may past time. Many of my drawings are best sellers. I am an expert designer of buildings in my country.

And this is relevant to our current conversation how?
lwd
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Next

Return to Kriegsmarine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests