Talk:Admiral Hipper-class cruiser

Class assessment
I reverted a version to reinstate an assessment of the class. Although the details were relevant and factual (broadly supported elsewhere), no explanation was offered for the deletion. Is there any? Folks at 137 12:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"in the Baltic" There was the Soviet Baltic Fleet. "North Sea" The convoys going to Soviet Union. "Neither could they be used for operations against Atlantic convoys" Well, this did not seem to prevent Prinz Eugen from teaming with Bismarck.

"Teaming the Hippers with other ships (e.g. a Bismarck class battleship) was also difficult because of the different ranges of the ships." Nontheless, this did not prevent Prinz Eugen from teaming with Bismarck. Difficult perhaps. Impossible? No.

"Also the cruisers had not enough firepower to break through convoy defenses on their own, especially if the convoy was escorted by a cruiser."

That depends, and they were never meant to attack heavily escorted convoys alone.


 * I reinserted the paragraph (again). The point is that the ships were badly suited for the tasks they were made to perform, which sheds some light on the competence (rather incompetence) and thinking of the German Naval High Command of that time (basically "everybody else has them, so we need them").That the ships actually put to sea and were not kept rusting in the harbor is irrelevant for this point.


 * Concerning the criticisms:
 * Keep in mind that there is always a limited amount of resources avaiable to build warships. Each of the Hippers consumed at least as many resources as a pocket-battleship, alternativly several destroyers may have been build with the manpower and steel. So what did these ships achieve that justified building them instead of the others? Not much.


 * use in the baltic and arctic: The soviet fleet was kept bottled up at Kronstadt for most of the war, so no ships were needed against it. If it had sortied, the Hippers would have been of little use against their battleships (old, but too strongly protected against 8 inch shells), against it's destroyers light cruisers and destroyers would have been more effective (a common flaw in treaty cruisers, the 8-inch gun was to slow-firing against fast-moving targets). The 180mm (about 7 inches) guns of the two russian heavy cruisers (Kirov and Maxim Gorki) could easily penetrate the Hippers protection, against a pocket-battleship they would have had far lesser chances. So against the soviet fleet these ships were the worst possible choice.Same against artic convoys: they were mostly protected by at least two british 10,000-tons cruisers armed with either 12 fast-firing 6-inch guns or 8 8-inch guns, so could met the Hippers on at least comparable terms. At the one time an artic-convoy was attacked (December 31, 1942) the british covering force consisting of HMS Belfast and HMS Jamaica (both with 6-inch guns) severely damaged the Admiral Hipper by hitting an engine-room, thus reducing it's speed and forcing the German cruiser to retire.A better protected pocket-battleship would have fared better, see Battle of the River Plate were Admiral Graf Spee fought 3 british cruiser (1 heavy, two light) for two hours without sustaining combat-critical damage, while badly mauling the british heavycruiser (all guns out of action, economic total loss) and severely damaging one of the light cruisers.


 * Atlantic Convoys: The pocket-battleships could cruise long distances without needing to refuel, making them ideally suited for atlantic warfare, see the operations of Admiral Scheer in 1940/1941. The Scheer could go 10,000 nautical miles at fast cruising speed and 21,000 at economic speed, operating in the Indian ocean supported by one oiler. The Hippers maximum range was 6800 nautical miles at economic speed, four oilers were required for her one atlantic operation. The only convoy Admiral Hipper successfully attacked was undefended, when it stumbled upon the troop-convoy WS-20 encountering one heavy cruiser and two light cruisers (HMS Berwick, HMS Bonaventure and HMS Caledon) it had no chance an had to run. The Admiral Scheer would have had a decent chance. Definitly a bad decision to build them.
 * All actions of Hipper-class cruiser were kind of "well, we have them, what shall we do with them?". Nevfennas 20:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"keep in mind that there is always a limited amount of resources avaiable to build warships" Germany had a naval building programme to build a large navy. That the programme was not finished because of the start of WWII is irrelevant. The programme had its start in the 1930s when Admiral Hipper's were still being build, and no one knew that World War would start in 1939.

"If it had sortied, the Hippers would have been of little use against their battleships," Why exactly would they have to fight agaisn't them alone? On September 1941 Germany sent a naval force on Finnish waters consisted of battleship Tirpitz, pocket battleships Admiral Scheer and more. "The 180mm (about 7 inches) guns of the two russian heavy cruisers (Kirov and Maxim Gorki) could easily penetrate the Hippers protection" The Germans guns could do the same even more easier; the Soviet heavy cruisers had very weak armour, 40mm belt or so and rest of the armour wasn't axactly strong either. "against a pocket-battleship they would have had far lesser chances." Umh...Soviet Navy did not have pocket battleships. (He means that the Soviet cruiser would have had less chance against a Deutschland-class ship...) "So against the soviet fleet these ships were the worst possible choice." I disagree.

You underestimate Admiral Hipper's. During the Battle of Denmark Strait, an 8 inch shell from Prinz Eugen found its way to the propelling charge/round manipulation chamber below the after 5.25-inch gun turrets of Prince of Wales, and a 15 inch shell from Bismarck hit underwater very close to the after 14-inch magazine. Fortunately neither shell exploded; Prince of Wales might have succumbed to a fate similar to the Hood. You talk about how poorly Admiral Hipper's would always perform in battle agaisn't cruisers, and look what one did in a battle agaisn't battleship.

"Same against artic convoys:" That depends..."At the one time an artic-convoy was attacked (December 31, 1942) the british covering force consisting of HMS Belfast and HMS Jamaica (both with 6-inch guns) severely damaged the Admiral Hipper by hitting an engine-room, thus reducing it's speed and forcing the German cruiser to retire." So what? The battle did not have to end like that.

"All actions of Hipper-class cruiser were kind of; well, we have them, what shall we do with them?" Hardly so.


 * Umh...Soviet Navy did not have pocket battleships: "they" in the sentence in question were meant to read the soviet cruisers, meaning a german pocket-battleship to be more effective against russian ships than a Hipper-class. Note that during the German sortie in September 1941 pocket battleship Admiral Scheer participated, the Admiral Hipper did not. It was in dock converting several water-tanks into oil-bunkers to increase operational range. My point was that for every possible task in such an engagement other ships ( build for a comparable price) would have been more effective (pocket-battleships for fighting against cruisers, light cruisers against destroyers).


 * You talk about how poorly Admiral Hipper's would always perform in battle agaisn't cruisers: I compare it's performance to the pocket-battleship that could have been build for the same price, and with the exception of top speed the Hippers end up loosing. That one came close to blowing up Prince of Wales (and an unlikely though not impossible theory credits it with blowing up the Hood as well) doesn't change that assessment, as a pocket-battleship could have achieved the same. Of course with a top speed of 26 knots the pocket-battleships would have been even worse to team up with a Bismarck or Gneisenau than the Hippers, but they were powerfull enough on their own not to require it in the first place.


 * no one knew that World War would start in 1939: to be precise, the German Naval High Command (OKM) had been assured by Hitler that it had time until 1944 to prepare for war and ignored all signs to the contrary. Planning and construction of the Hippers commenced after the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, which allowed Germany to build up to 35% of the british tonnage. The Z-Plan naval building programm started in November 1938 did not plan for any further Hippers. Instead 12 enlarged pocket-battleships (20,000 tons, 6 x 15 inch guns) were to be build for commerce raiding, 24 light cruisers for other purposes.


 * My opinon is not that the Hippers were bad cruisers, they were certainly fine ships and look good when being compared to other heavy cruisers. But for Germany they were the wrong type of ships to be build. Nevfennas 20:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My two cents here : (1) The theory that in fact it was PE which sank Hood is nonsense and absolutely impossible, the simple reason being that by the time Hood was hit and blew up, PE, by order of Adm. Lütjens, had already shifted target on PoW. (2) Maximum speed of the pocket battleships was 28 knots, not 26. 2001:4DD6:92AC:0:B930:5485:B3F6:DD39 (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Secondary armament
AFAIK the 105mm guns were only used as AA guns. Though it may have been theoretically possible to fire anti-ship-shells from them, their mounts and fire-control were designed only for AA-targets and only such ammunition was aboard. Same for all other german capital ships. Only the twelve German Torpedoboats used the 105mm against surface-targets. Nevfennas 10:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glowworm_(H92) HIPPER used her 10.5c, against GLOWWORM. Brooksindy (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional note: according to http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_41-65_skc33.php the HE rounds could be base fuzed which presumably would not be for aircraft targets. Brooksindy (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Ships in class
Ships in class section has been restored. It should not be eliminated in its entirety, as it allows an at-a-glance look at the ships of the class with brief notes on when ships served, etc. Such a broad overview is a very appropriate inclusion in the class article. It was completely deleted about a month ago, and it became hard to even find a link to the ships of the class--not a good plan for a class article. Josh 00:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Amazed to find that there's no consolidated list of ships in the class. Shocked to see that this is being removed with no attempt to establish a consensus either way. No wonder this is still a "start" class, we should concentrate on being constructive and cooperative. IMO some sort of ship list is essential, the details can be discussed. Folks at 137 18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Was Lützow not a deutchland class Panzershiff? 94.44.101.131 (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There were two; this Lützow, which was sold to the Soviet Union, and Deutschland, which was renamed Lützow in 1940. Parsecboy (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Original Opinions
This section "By the time the first ship of the class had been laid down the other leading European navies had ceased to build 8” cruisers as it was felt that in a likely cruiser engagement, a larger number of 155 mm (6-inch) guns would be preferable to a smaller number of 203 mm (8-inch). "

As well as being quite inaccurate, violates Wiki guidelines on no original research, and verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisMCau (talk • contribs) 22:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever the other faults that may be alleged, originality of research hardly applies; the following - broadly equivalent - text will be found in the Wikipedia article on heavy cruiser"In the mid 1930s, Britain, France and Italy ceased building heavy cruisers. It was felt that in a likely cruiser engagement, a larger number of 155 mm (6-inch) guns would be preferable to a smaller number of 203 mm (8-inch). The heavier shell of the 203 mm weapon was of little advantage, as most ships that could withstand a 6-inch hit were also well-protected against eight-inch shells. This led to the construction of cruisers up to the 10,000-tons limit, with twelve to fifteen 155 mm guns. While these ships fell into the 'light cruiser' classification by virtue of the calibre of their main armament, they were designed to fight a heavy cruiser on equal terms again making something of a nonsense of the classifications."
 * As for 'being quite inaccurate' I believe earlier versions of the article quoted build dates of the last 8" cruisers built for the other leading European navies, and they were consistent with the statement Rjccumbria (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Its presence in another Wikipedia article hardly disqualifies it from being original research. Unless reliable sources can be provided to support the information, it will be treated what it in all likelihood is: commentary from armchair admirals. Parsecboy (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Lützow
Regarding the article's claim that Lützov did not see action during WW2 (if I understood it correctly): She was a part of the Blücher invasion (operation Weserübung) force heading for Oslo april 9th 1940 and was fired upon by Norwegian coastal batteries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.22.226.201 (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That was the Lützow (ex-Deutschland) but not the Hipper-class ship. --Denniss (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Displacement
This article contributes to confusion I am seeing in discussions outside Wikepedia that refer back to the article; people are getting a false impression that the class is considerably larger than for example the Baltimore class. The article refers to the "10,000 ton displacement limit" but never mentions that this refers to the Washington Treaty standard displacement. Then the lower displacements are given as "Design displacements" which refer to having a large percentage of fuel and feedwater aboard, i.e. corresponding to the "normal" displacements seen before the Washington Treaty. Fuel and reserve feed water weights are by definition omitted from standard displacements. I would recommend the addition of standard displacement tonnages to the data sidebar and the text, as well, and definitions added to the text to clarify this. Note that there is a typographical error in Koop and Schmolke of labeling the design displacement as standard but they provide weight breakdowns for all three completed ships which allows one to back calculate the standard displacements.

Brooksindy (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

costs of these cruisers?
Had to be expensive. What do the RS's say? 50.111.8.86 (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)