A Z-Plan question

[nebelwerferXXX]

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?

To make it straight, the terms 'sea-going' and 'ocean-going' comes from a book 'Hitler's high seas fleet, but the meaning of the two terms comes from my own words. Do I make myself very clear now? Architect? That's a long story.

[nebelwerferXXX]

Do you have other questions, other than that 'sea-going' and 'ocean-going'?

[lwd]

Do you have other questions, other than that 'sea-going' and 'ocean-going'?

So you are using terms you won't or can't define adequately?
As for the the fact that you are an architect why bring it up if it's not relevant?

[nebelwerferXXX]

Do you have other questions, other than that 'sea-going' and 'ocean-going'?

So you are using terms you won't or can't define adequately?
As for the the fact that you are an architect why bring it up if it's not relevant?

As I've said earlier, It's the language of the author Mr. Richard Humble, I just only adoptive it, because I believe that it's correct. How about you? Can you define it correctly? I have not heard your definition yet. Goodbye!

[nebelwerferXXX]

Questions of the day:

Test I: Define the following terms.
1) Sea-going
2) Ocean-going
3) Coastal
4) Pocket-battleship

Test II: Differentiate the German 'Z-plan' and the Spanish 'Z-plan' according to manpower, money and machinery.

Test III: Did the Italian Navy have a 'Z-plan' also?

I ask this questions, because I am making a Project Paper and a Feasibility Study about a small shipbuilding project, also included is the German 'Z-plan' as my model. Any reactions are highly needed. Thanks!

[lwd]

Do you have other questions, other than that 'sea-going' and 'ocean-going'?

So you are using terms you won't or can't define adequately?
As for the the fact that you are an architect why bring it up if it's not relevant?

As I've said earlier, It's the language of the author Mr. Richard Humble, I just only adoptive it, because I believe that it's correct.

You believe it's correct but you can't define it? Terminoloy that is used to define catagories is useless if it can't be used to tell what's in them.

How about you? Can you define it correctly? I have not heard your definition yet.

I'm not the one using it, why should I have to explain it? However if you'll look back to some of the previous posts I mentioned that in common usage ocean going = sea going as far as I can tell. Furthermore I pointed to the catagories used at u-boat.net which describe which classes of uboat are in the three classes they use.

[nebelwerferXXX]

I have with me the definitions of the terms, but no need to reveal this on the net. It's confidential.

[lwd]

I have with me the definitions of the terms, but no need to reveal this on the net. It's confidential.

I've seen some rediculous responses on the net but thist takes the cake. If you use a term you should be preparied to define it especially if it is a non standard one. Defintions aren't "confidential" and if you can't say what sub classes are in which of your catagories then it implies a number of things about both you and your posts none of which are positive.

[nebelwerferXXX]

I have with me the definitions of the terms, but no need to reveal this on the net. It's confidential.

I've seen some rediculous responses on the net but thist takes the cake. If you use a term you should be preparied to define it especially if it is a non standard one. Defintions aren't "confidential" and if you can't say what sub classes are in which of your catagories then it implies a number of things about both you and your posts none of which are positive.

What definitions do you recommend? I have not heard you yet. I am always the one who is answering your questions. How about you?

[lwd]

What definitions do you recommend? I have not heard you yet.

As long as they are clear it's not critical. If they conform to normal usage that's even better. The problem has been that it's not clear what the differneces are between your "sea-going" and "ocean-going" catagories. It's also apparent that you are having problems with the defitions too or you'd be able to either tell us what u-boat classes are in what catagories or present a clear defintion. To date you have done neither. As for me not recommending any I have pointed out the ones used by uboat.net on a number of occasions. That site not only gives a pretty clear defintion they tell what classes are in which catagories.

I am always the one who is answering your questions. How about you?

That's because you are the proponent. Answering questions about your posts are rather on your shoulders. I certainly can't.

[nebelwerferXXX]

What definitions do you recommend? I have not heard you yet.

As long as they are clear it's not critical. If they conform to normal usage that's even better. The problem has been that it's not clear what the differences are between your "sea-going" and "ocean-going" categories. It's also apparent that you are having problems with the definitions too or you'd be able to either tell us what u-boat classes are in what categories or present a clear definition. To date you have done neither. As for me not recommending any I have pointed out the ones used by u-boat.net on a number of occasions. That site not only gives a pretty clear definition they tell what classes are in which categories.

I am always the one who is answering your questions. How about you?

That's because you are the proponent. Answering questions about your posts are rather on your shoulders. I certainly can't.

A dry-run for a thesis deliberation?

[lwd]

...
A dry-run for a thesis deliberation?

Are you saying that's what you are doing? Or implying something esle? In any case claiming that definitions you are using are confidential is piling it on awfully deep.

[nebelwerferXXX]

Material Requirements: Plan Z

CAPITAL SHIPS:
(a) Six x 56,000-ton battleships...336,000 tons
(b) Two x 42,000-ton battleships...84,000 tons
(c) Three x 32,000-ton battle-cruisers...96,000 tons
(d) Three x 12,000-ton pocket-battleships...36,000 tons
(e) Four x 30,000-ton aircraft-carriers...120,000 tons

SMALLER SHIPS:
(f) Five x 10,000-ton '8-inch gun' heavy cruisers...50,000 tons
(g) 44 x 10,000-ton '6-inch gun' light cruisers...440,000 tons
(h) 68 x 2,500-ton destroyers...170,000 tons
(i) 90 x 800-ton torpedo-boats...72,000 tons
(j) 249 x 750-ton U-boats...186,750 tons
_________________________________________________
T O T A L : 1,590,750 tons of construction shipbuilding materials

note: All weights were standard displacement

sources:
Hitler's high sea fleet
Encyclopedia of World War II

[lwd]

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

[nebelwerferXXX]

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.