Feldgrau.net

nebelwerferXXX wrote:

lwd wrote:Why do you think there is a one to one correlation between "ship building materials" and standard displacement? Of what value is such a nebulous term in any case?

When building a ship, you need the 'requirements for the materials', and after the ship is already completed, you have the total of all the materials in a finished product of a completed ship in 'standard displacement' in tons.

The problem is the amount of materials needed to build something are greater than the amount of materials in the finished product. Further more standard displacement is more than the weight of the ship. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(ship)

What If the Z-Plan Program have this ships?

---2 x 30,000-ton Graf Zeppelin-Class aircraft carriers with 100 aircraft each
---4 x 42,000-ton Bismarck-Class battleships
---5 x 32,000-ton Scharnhorst-Class battle-cruisers
---70 Landing Ship Tanks (LSTs)
---2,500 Landing Craft Infantry (LCIs)
---1,300 x 750-ton Type VII submarines fitted with Schnorkel

It was easier to build than the original plan.

nebelwerferXXX wrote:What If the Z-Plan Program have this ships?
...
It was easier to build than the original plan.

Perhaps and perhaps not. But simply quoteing a list of ships is of little use in answering your questions. I will take a stab at a couple of points though.

nebelwerferXXX wrote:...
---2 x 30,000-ton Graf Zeppelin-Class aircraft carriers with 100 aircraft each

The Graf Zeppelin was never intended to carry even half that number of air craft. Given Germany's position and experiance with aircraft carriers as well as building rates these would probably be worse than useless.

---5 x 32,000-ton Scharnhorst-Class battle-cruisers

Why build more Scharnhorst Class battleships? Why not go for either Bismarck's or curisers?

---70 Landing Ship Tanks (LSTs)
---2,500 Landing Craft Infantry (LCIs)

When and how do you think these could be used?