Kriegsmarine Destroyers Part 2
Z Class Destroyers Z5 - Z16
By: Daniel H. Jones
When war came the German Navy was not ready. Hitler had promised that war
would not begin until 1944 at the earliest and the German ship construction
program was only in its infancy. The destroyer force found itself outnumbered
by more than four to one but in spite of this, was able to achieve some success
in the first year. Aggressive mining operations accounted for the majority
of their victories. The destroyers sortied many times into the channel and
held their own in encounters with the Royal Navy. Then, in 1940, the German
destroyer force suffered two setbacks from which they were never able to recover.
On the evening on February 22, 1940 a group of six type 34 destroyers was
attacked by twin engine aircraft while on a sortie. The aircraft bombed and
sank two ships, Maass and Eckholdt. The aircraft had been identified by destroyer
officers as German (He-111) and when the subsequent investigation was completed
it was determined that they had indeed been sunk by "friendly" planes. Not
only was this a blow to morale but it did little to lessen the almost natural
animosity between the Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe.
The second blow soon followed. The British and the Germans were both eyeing
neutral Norway as a potential strategic next move. The Germans struck first
and invaded on April 9, 1940. This was a Navy operation, almost all of the
available surface forces participated. The British reaction was swift and
in a series of vicious surface actions in the confined waters of the Norwegian
fjords the Germans losses were heavy. Although the victory went to Germany,
the cost to the Kriegsmarine was catastrophic. Operation "Weserubung" (Norway)
cost the navy the loss of the cruisers Blucher, Karlsruhe, and Konigsberg,
three torpedo boats and ten destroyers, over half of the total operational
units! After Norway the destroyers were on the same operational leash as the
cruisers and battleships. They could no longer be used aggressively. High
command could no longer regard them as expendable!
For the remainder of the war most of their time was spent in northern waters.
Much time was spent at anchor in fjords and operational skills declined from
neglect. Remaining units continued mining operations but now they were defensive.
Like their British counterparts, German destroyers had refits consisting of
additional anti-aircraft weapons fitted. Unlike British practice, these were
added without deleting torpedo capacity. This was probably not a wise decision
as there were few opportunities for launching torpedoes apart from practice.
The drawings show Type 34A (Z-5 through Z-16) vessels (modified Maass) as
they were built and as they were re-armed at the end of the war. The next
group were collectively known as the Type 36, (Z-17 through Z-22) or in allied
intelligence sources as the Von Roeder class. The drawing of Z-20 is typical
of the class, both as they entered service and at the end of the war. These
vessels were an improvement over the Z-1 to Z-16 with a longer hull, lower
drag, better stability and improved seakeeping qualities. As a model subject.
they are easier to do than the Maass as the hull is closer to the size of
the Z-37/39 kit. Only one cut is needed and the reduction is about 1/8 of
an inch. The gun platforms are larger, round in shape and easily made from
.020 card. Guns are the same as in the preceding class. Note the reduced structure
around the second funnel and the symmetrical mounting of the anti-aircraft
guns. The bow has the same modification as the Maass: fill in the cut outs
and drill conventional hawse holes. Note there is slightly more flare at the
bow compared to the Maass. The bridge size and design is similar to the later
Z-37-39 type which makes this a very easy conversion. Refer to part one for
details of guns and to the present drawings for platform patterns.
Z-5 with gate mast
|
Z-5 - Z-16 1938
Pre War typical appearence |
Z-20 1940
|
Z-20 1945
Increased AA Fit |
This article originally appeared in Plastic Ship Modeler 1994/2
and is reprinted here with the permission of the author and editor.
Copyright © SMML 2003