Tzoli's avatar

Austro-Hungarian Project V Battleship Design

40 29 3K (4 Today)
By Tzoli   |   Watch
Published: January 5, 2018
© 2018 - 2019 Tzoli
This was the final battleship proposal by the MTK (Marinetechnische Komitee - Naval Technical Committee), Pola offered in late 1917, early 1918. It was a further improvement on the previous Project III type with another step taken in a larger main weapon calibre: the 42cm sized cannons. These weapons first appeared on the Imperial German navy post Jutland battleship and battlecruiser (The Grosskreuzer and L 20) designs planned for the post war fleet of Germany as well.
The 4 turrets are in a conventional layout of superfiring pairs forward and aft while the secondary armament are along the sides in casemates, while the 15cm heavy Dual Purpose AA guns are located in turrets on the deck with a single large funnel emphasising this design. What you actually see is the battleship equivalent of the Project VI battlecruiser mounting the same kind of armament but on a thicker and more armoured hull.

The ship reminiscent both in size, armament and armour to the Japanese Nagato class battleships laid down a few years earlier.

The design(s) had the following characteristics:
Dimensions: 215 (wl) x 32 x 9,5m
Displacement: 37.200tons (standard), 39.600tons (full load)
Armour: 40mm Deck, 300mm Belt
Engines: 56.000shp Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 44km/h (24knots)
Range: 9.000km at 28km/h (5.000nm at 15knots) or
5.500km at 44km/h (3.000nm at 24knots)
Armaments: 
4x2 42cm Cannons
20x1 15cm Guns
4x1 15cm DP-AA Guns
6x1 53cm Underwater Torpedo tubes


The original drawings can be found here:
www.viribusunitis.ca/images/pr…
www.viribusunitis.ca/predesign…

Or here together with a small history on them:
stefsap.wordpress.com/2017/12/…


And finally based on the naming conventions of the German and Austro-Hungarian navies, the name of the class most likely be Ersatz Habsburg class the next oldest battleships of the KuK navy after the Monarch class.

This concludes the Austro-Hungarian Navy the Kaiserliche und Königliche Kriegsmarine never were warship designs I've started in 2017 March!
Image size
4100x2000px 1.19 MB
Comments29
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Sign In
LeDaverix's avatar
LeDaverixHobbyist Digital Artist
ah... those times where we actually had a Navy :D  .. . nice one :)
Tzoli's avatar
TzoliHobbyist Digital Artist
We had some serius proposals by the end of the war
LeDaverix's avatar
LeDaverixHobbyist Digital Artist
and now we only have litle litle boats driving up and down the danube  ...  sad it hasn't been built, this would have made nowadays a really cool attraction in our capitals :)
Tzoli's avatar
TzoliHobbyist Digital Artist
Except it could not travel on rivers
LeDaverix's avatar
LeDaverixHobbyist Digital Artist
well we could disassemble, and reassemble it in the Lake Neusiedl :D
Tzoli's avatar
TzoliHobbyist Digital Artist
An almost 40.000ton warship? Not going to happen! :)
LeDaverix's avatar
LeDaverixHobbyist Digital Artist
well then well use a lot of tree trunks and roll it over it, all the way from the adria to the lake :D
leovictor's avatar
You know why I'm rooting for this ship to be in WoW? (even-though the probability is extremely low)

The insane amount of secondary guns.
This ship packs Yamato and Grosser Kurfurst DPM level secondaries at Tier 7.
It's like having 2 Clevelands bolted on each side.
Will make for some very LOL worthy matches.
Golgotha17's avatar
I'm currently working on a branch for austro-hungarian battleships for WoWs. Unfortunately, making it a complete line requires some hypothetical designs, but WG isn't exactly averse to that, as Roon, Hindenburg and Großer Kurfürst will tell you. I placed Design V (I tentatively chose the name "Joseph Radetzky") at tier VIII and am currently working on fine-tuning the line to fit in with the other nations. It's still weeks off, mind you, but I enjoy working on it quite a lot (more than I expected, truth be told).
leovictor's avatar
Wow Nice to meet someone who contributes to Wargaming.

Good luck making ships for Tier 9 and 10.

Another challenge is how the Reconstructed Austro Hungarian ships will look like in the 1940s timeframe
since you have no example to draw from.
Especially since the Austro Hungarian ships have the most bare bone minimalistic superstructures.
Or save from a pair of tripod masts, a conning tower and a tin can bridge there is NOTHING there.
They have less superstructures than WW1 American battleships.
Except from similar caliber size (and slide breech guns) these ships have barely anything in common with their German counterpart.
How are you going to infer a hypothetical WW2 level reconstruction from that?

With the WW1 German you can use modern examples of warships to estimate what a reconstructed
WW1 German vessel will look like for example Bayern has a bridge and tower superstructure straight from the Deutschland.

But good look trying to estimate what a Design V battleship will look like in WW2
and what type of AA guns it will use.
(Skoda did also use the 105mm caliber in their field howitzers which should act as the HAA counterpart
for the German 105 mm and the 140mm 56 caliber gun could make a powerful secondary weapon).


BTW. Who's bright idea is the T10 FRANCE?
Golgotha17's avatar
Thanks for your kind words.

Yes, the most obvious problem would be how to approach the upgrades to the ships. Tzoli does have a drawing that I think comes pretty close to what I envision (Modernised Battleship Szent Istvan), though I wouldn't have large-scale reconstruction until tier VI. Looks-wise, I would like it to be similar to the upgraded superstructure of Bayern in WoWs. I think that would work fairly well with the austro-hungarian ships and probably even keep the general design for the rest of the branch.

Armaments aren't that much of a problem, I have enough historical equipment to work with for the early-to-mid tiers. Did you know, for example, that Hungary license-produced its own 40mm Bofors? They were used in the 40M Nimrod SPAAG, itself a license-built swedish design. For the later tiers, I can draw upon the weapons made in the A-H successor states, especially Czechoslovakia.

The biggest headache at the moment is the tier X. I don't really see any option beyond making it another 4x3 turreted ship, even though we already have 3 ships with the same gun arrangement. Also, I'm only making a rough overview of the specs without any drawings. I can't draw to save my life.

Finally, the T10 France seems to be an enlarged version of the Gascogne, a modification of the Richelieu that moved one quad turret aft. I'm not really a fan of the design myself, a T10 all-forward main gun BB would have been much more interesting in my opinion.
leovictor's avatar
I look forward to the result.
But will Austro Hungary be the last Nation of the tech tree navies?
There are 8 in total right?
Japan
USA
Germany
UK
France
Italy
Russia
Austro Hungary

I don't know of another navy that did independent ship R&D that warrant a full three.
I would be amazed if Wargaming can pull a Chinese battleship techtree out of its ass.
The other are minor navies that could have shared trees like Latin America's cruisers.
And you have other small navies that warrant premiums like Holland's Project 1047 and Spain's version of Littorio.

There's still room for a battlecruiser line for the Royal, German and Japanese Navy in case Wargaming is running out of nations.

"I don't really see any option beyond making it another 4x3 turreted ship"
The Austro Hungarians pioneered the 4x3 super firing setup and beat the USS Pennsylvania to it by 3 and a half years.
So it should be fitting that the Austro Hungarian T10 should end with this setup

IMHO Grosser Kurfurst should never have had triple turrets.
My original idea for a German T10 was 8 X 460 mm in twins.
Just like Quad turrets is the national flavor for the French navy the Germans went with Twin turrets.
All German ships in the battleship techtree has Twin turrets except Grosser Kurfurst.
The Germans put their shell elevators between the two guns their guns ended being separated far apart in the turret.
Because of this design quirk Germans avoided Triple turrets as much as possible because we can already
see the result with Grosser Kurfurst turret being way bigger than Yamato's (and probably way heavier with all the armor).

I'm not a fan of the France either.
You have to play it like a Graf Spee with the drawback of being a far bigger target.
France historically had a 450mm gun planned and possibly prototyped in the early 1920s.
I don't know where Wargaming got the 431mm from.
France could have been a LOLZY ship had they modeled her with 16 X 380mm guns in 4 quads.
Nothing in smoke would have been safe from this ship.
She would have been an Atlanta with 380mm guns.
Golgotha17's avatar
When the austro-hungarian navy comes (I consider it a matter of time more than a matter of "If"), it will most likely be after the seven major navies are finished (like, german and russian CV branch-finished).

While I don't think you could add any more complete tech trees without WG making up their own ships, you can for example make half a tree for the spanish navy. They had enough cruiser and destroyer designs to warrant it - just take a look over at shipbucket's never-built section for Spain. There's even someone who made two branches for it on the forum: forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic…

It's certainly much more justified than that copy-paste pan-asian DD line that's only in the game to attract more chinese players.

Regarding battlecruisers, I believe I heard that WG would very much like to include branches for the British and Germans. They actually have quite a number of designs that could be used to make complete lines - agains, shipbucket's never-were section is quite nice. Britain, for example, could have the Admiral-class at T7 (of which Hood was the only one built). Take a look: www.shipbucket.com/drawings/51…

Thanks for reminding me that A-H pioneered the 4x3 design, it certainly puts the T10 into perspective (I'll probably name if Franz Ferdinand).

Regarding the Kurfürst, yeah, that's what happens when WG uses its "russian archives". I still refuse to believe that it's a real design. More likely WG made it up to avoid their "No guns bigger than Yamato's"-rule. I think it's silly and the GK should have the option to go for 48cm or 50.8cm twin turrets. We'll see if WG eventually decides to make it an option.

I'd also have preferred the France with 4x4 380mm guns. Heck, you could even make it an option to swap them out for 3x3 450mm guns for those who prefer their guns xboxhueg.
leovictor's avatar
Lastly.

The Spanish cruiser line looks like a hodge podge of different nation design which it is.

The T9 cruiser looks Italian but the T10 cruiser looks like it was designed in Holland.
Golgotha17's avatar
Thanks for the nice discussion.

Lastly, in regards to the spanish cruiser line: You're correct about the T9, it was an italian design made for the spanish navy, but the T10 was indeed an indigenous design. Quite an ambitious one, at that.

But now we should really stop clogging up the comments section ;-)
leovictor's avatar
Thanks for the good links.
I would like to discuss more but I don't want to drag out someone else's art page.
Good luck with the A-H tree.
Tzoli's avatar
TzoliHobbyist Digital Artist
Sadly you cannot control the secondary guns and also these were older guns with a slower rate of fire and because they are secondary guns their range are 1/3rd or even 1/4th as they should be.

www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNAus…
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_…

Though with 42cm guns (With the Austrian variants having larger muzzle velocity and firing a slightly heavier shell than the German proposed one) the Nelson class could run for it's money
Midway2009's avatar
Midway2009Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Awesome battleship. :D
Golgotha17's avatar
I've got a question regarding the main guns of the projects III and V - were they to be the same guns used by the german empire or an indigenous design? Is there any information regarding this?
Tzoli's avatar
TzoliHobbyist Digital Artist
Norman Friedman's Naval Weapons of World War I states these would be similar to the German ones but the guns themselves were designed by Skoda.

Here they are for comparison (Brackets are for the German ones)
38cm/45 Gun:
Shell: 760kg ( 750kg )
Muzzle Velocity: 830m/s ( 805m/s )
Heavier shell considered as of: 825kg and 800m/s for the Skoda gun
Working Pressure: 2.800atm / 18,375tons/in^2 ( 20tons/in^2 )
Expected range: 28km ( 23,2km )
Max elevation of turrets: 30° ( 20° )

42cm/45 Gun:
Shell: 1110kg ( 1.000-1.030kg )
Muzzle Velocity: 800m/s (same)
Heavier shell considered as of: 1200kg and 770m/s for the skoda guns
Working Pressure: 2.800atm / 18.375tons/in^2 ( no data for the german )
Expected range: 33km (same)
Max elevation of turrets: 30° (same)
CommanderShasOFroSty's avatar
CommanderShasOFroStyHobbyist Artist
How is it possible that the Skoda 38cm gun has a higher kinetic energy output but a lower working pressure than the German gun?
Tzoli's avatar
TzoliHobbyist Digital Artist
I don't know these data was given in Norman Friedman's book. It is not impossible that there are errors on either the Austrian or German type of guns.
Or might be because Germany used cartridge shells even in this large calibre while Austria used the more common powder charge ones.
CommanderShasOFroSty's avatar
CommanderShasOFroStyHobbyist Artist
Oh, never considered that cartridge shell issue.
What's next? Are there any KuK designs you've still to go?
Tzoli's avatar
TzoliHobbyist Digital Artist
Nope I've finished. I do have drawings of the Radetzky preliminaries (5 variants) but I only know their armament and no other data (like armour engine or dimensions) So those are currently on hold until I find more data about them
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Sign In