Siegfried class

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Siegfried class
The Beowulf
The Beowulf
Ship data
country German EmpireGerman Empire (Reichskriegsflagge) German Empire
Ship type Coastal armored ship
Construction period 1888 to 1896
Launch of the type ship August 10, 1889
Units built 8th
period of service 1890 to 1919
Ship dimensions and crew
length
79.0 m ( Lüa )
76.4 m ( KWL )
width 14.9 m
Draft Max. 5.74 m
displacement Construction: 3,500 t
Maximum: 3,741 t
 
crew 276 men
Machine system
machine 4 steam locomotive boilers
2 standing 3-cylinder compound machines
Machine
performance 		5,022 PS (3,694 kW)
Top
speed 		14.9 kn (28 km / h)
propeller 2 three-winged ø 3.5 m
Armament
  • 3 × Rk 24.0 cm L / 35 (204 shots)
  • 6 × Sk 8.8 cm L / 30 (1,500 shots)
  • 6 × Mk 3.7 cm
  • 4 × torpedo tube ø 35 cm (1 stern, 2 sides over water, 1 bow under water, 10 shots)
Armor
  • Waterline: 100-240 mm
  • Deck : 30 mm
  • Towers : 30 mm
  • Barbettes : 200 mm
  • Command tower: 30–80 mm

The Siegfried class was a class of eight coastal armored ships of the Imperial Navy , whose type ship and namesake was the Siegfried , launched in 1889 . According to Leo von Caprivi's naval concept, the units were intended for the protection of the German North and Baltic Sea coasts and especially the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal and were supposed to destroy enemy warships in the coastal apron together with torpedo boats . However, both the conception and the construction of the class came under criticism several times.

During the peacetime period, some of the ships were active for training the ship's crews until 1909. However, some units were mostly in reserve. Between 1898 and 1904, the Imperial Navy subjected all eight ships to extensive modifications. During the First World War, the Siegfried- class units provided outpost and security service on the great estuaries of the North Sea. Due to their obsolescence and low combat strength, the Navy put the ships out of service at the beginning of 1916, with the exception of the Beowulf . After the end of the war, four ships were scrapped, Frithjof , Odin and Aegir used as cargo ships after a corresponding conversion.

Two Siegfried- class ships - the Hildebrand in 1919 and the Aegir ten years later - were lost due to stranding. The Odin was the last ship of the class to be scrapped in 1935.

history

Development and construction

With the arrival of Lieutenant General Leo von Caprivi as head of the Imperial Admiralty in 1883, coastal defense became significantly more important. Like other leading figures of the time, von Caprivi saw the main task of the navy in relieving the sole decisive army from the task of coastal defense. He also assumed that the two-front war against France and Russia would soon be taking place. In his opinion, for this reason, army armor had priority over the navy, which is why von Caprivi wanted to do without large and expensive ocean-going ships, especially since they had a long construction period. The establishment of an offensive fleet was a subordinate future goal for him.

Instead, the Imperial Navy procured a large number of torpedo boats, which von Caprivi saw as an almost ideal weapon, especially since they were comparatively cheap and quick to build. With a torpedo it was possible to attack the submerged part of an enemy ship directly and thus to damage or sink armored ships with great difficulty. The torpedo weapon had been continuously developed in the Imperial Navy and, since 1877, largely by Alfred Tirpitz and made ready for the front. The rapid and successful improvement of the torpedoes led to von Caprivi overrating them. The opinion that the torpedo boat would make large warships superfluous was also widespread in other navies and was one of the causes of the shipbuilding uncertainties of the time. In particular, Caprivi wanted to avoid failed shipbuilding experiments, not least because of the limited financial resources of the Imperial Navy.

Von Caprivi's conception of coastal defense also included the construction of armored ships. These should destroy enemy blockade forces damaged by the torpedo boats and the existing coastal fortifications in the coastal apron. Ships with a relatively shallow draft were planned that could navigate large estuaries and the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal, which is in the planning stage . They should be armored and heavily armed, even if they were to be avoided in a sea battle. In addition, at least a limited ability to sea should be guaranteed. A total of ten such vehicles were planned. Six of them were intended for the defense of the large estuaries, especially the Elbe estuary , in the German Bight , four were to be stationed in the Baltic Sea.

The first draft was made in 1885. This was modified again in 1887 and 1889, after construction of the first ship, which was laid on Kiel by the Germania shipyard in spring 1888, began . Based on this design, six ships were initially built between 1888 and 1894 at different shipyards. In 1892, based on the experiences made with the type ship, another change to the official draft took place. According to these plans, two more, slightly enlarged units, Odin and Aegir , were built. Both were put into service in the autumn of 1896 and the building program was thus completed. The costs for the ships averaged 5.8 million marks . The coastal armored ships were two-thirds cheaper than the armored ships of the Brandenburg class built between 1890 and 1894, each costing around 16 million marks, but much more powerful , which corresponded to Caprivi's premise of cost savings. However, the sums for the individual ships differed greatly from one another. The three ships built at the private shipyards Germaniawerft and AG Weser with around 4.7 million marks ( Siegfried , Germaniawerft) and around 5.3 million marks ( Beowulf and Frithjof , AG Weser) remained well below the average. The five units built by the Imperial Shipyards, on the other hand, were significantly more expensive, with the Odin accounting for around 6.5 million and the Aegir with over 6.6 million marks. The increased costs of the imperial shipyards, whose newbuildings were almost always more expensive than those of the private shipyards, arose mainly from their primary focus as repair shops, the bureaucratic management by civil servants and higher wages paid. The higher price at Aegir was also due to the fact that, in contrast to the sister ships, water tube boilers (Thornycroft design) and an increasing number of electrical auxiliary machines were installed here for the first time.

Ships of the class

Surname Shipyard Launch Commissioning modification Decommissioning Whereabouts
SMS Siegfried Germania shipyard , Kiel August 10, 1889 April 29, 1890 1902-1903 January 14, 1916 Wrecked in Kiel in 1920.
SMS Beowulf AG Weser , Bremen November 8, 1890 April 1, 1892 1900-1902 November 30, 1918 Wrecked in Danzig in 1921 .
SMS Frithjof AG Weser, Bremen July 21, 1891 February 23, 1893 1902-1903 January 16, 1916 Converted into a motor freighter in 1923, scrapped in Gdansk in 1930.
SMS Heimdall Imperial shipyard , Wilhelmshaven July 27, 1892 April 7, 1894 1901-1902 March 2, 1916 Wrecked in Rönnebeck in 1921 .
SMS Hildebrand Imperial shipyard , Kiel August 6, 1892 October 28, 1893 1901-1902 January 16, 1916 Stranded on December 21, 1919 on the way to the scrapping yard, the wreck was blown up and removed in 1933.
SMS Hagen Imperial shipyard, Kiel October 21, 1893 October 2, 1894 1898-1900 September 10, 1915 Broken down in the Netherlands .
SMS Odin Imperial Shipyard , Danzig October 3, 1894 September 22, 1896 1901-1903 October 9, 1919 Converted to a motor freighter in 1922, scrapped in 1935.
SMS Aegir Imperial shipyard, Kiel April 3, 1895 October 15, 1896 1903-1904 January 14, 1916 Converted to a cargo ship in 1922, stranded off Gotland on December 8, 1929 .

  • SMS Heimdall around 1895, clearly visible are the spars of the torpedo protection nets resting on the side of the fuselage

  • SMS Hildebrand after the renovation, here as a flagship with a rear admiral flag in front

  • SMS Aegir , already in its original state with two chimneys, with the flag of the Inspector General of the Navy

commitment

Siegfried , postcard representation of a fictional naval battle

For the use of the Siegfried class in a war, the concept of coastal defense was decisive. The prevention of a blockade of the German ports was a particular focus . Since the German Reich was more and more dependent on imports, this task became increasingly decisive in the war. The coastal armored ships, together with the torpedo boats and the support of the coastal fortifications, had to take action against enemy blockade forces of all kinds, but to avoid a sea battle. The strategic planning of the Imperial Navy assumed a tight blockade of the German ports, although the possibility of a distant blockade was publicly discussed as early as the 1890s. In fact, it was n't until 1912 that the Royal Navy made the remote blockade of the entire North Sea the basis of its strategy.

The ships of the Siegfried class were used in the fleet on various occasions in times of peace. For a longer period of time, some of the armored ships were mainly in service as master ships of the reserve divisions of the North and Baltic Seas. One of the main tasks was training the ship's crew. Other units, especially Heimdall and Hildebrand , were primarily active in the annual autumn maneuvers and were decommissioned after they were completed. The Hildebrand served several times as a flagship . Stays abroad were rare and almost always part of training trips. Only the Hagen sent the Navy briefly to Morocco in 1895 to emphasize the diplomatic demands of the German Empire. The last peacekeeping operation of all eight coastal armored ships took place before and during the autumn maneuvers in 1909. The navy used a large part of the ships in reserve for this purpose. Subsequently, all ships were decommissioned and remained in the reserve for the next five years.

The Hagen camouflaged on the Jade in 1915.

After the outbreak of World War I, the reactivated Siegfried class was taken up in VI. Squadron under the command of Richard Eckermann and later Herwarth Schmidt von Schwind . Although the ships were long out of date at this point, they were still used for subordinate tasks. The association was only closed for exercises until mid-September 1914. Then the ships performed the outpost and security service on the great estuaries in the North Sea. The Siegfried class thus fulfilled the originally intended function of coastal protection, but under completely different strategic circumstances. None of the coastal armored ships were involved in a battle with an enemy warship. However, the Hagen played a major role in rescuing 381 crew members of the large cruiser SMS Yorck, which sank on November 4, 1914 . The VI. Squadron was disbanded on August 31, 1915, the majority of the ships decommissioned in mid-January 1916. Only the Beowulf remained in active service until the end of the war and sailed in the eastern Baltic Sea. The other ships were mainly used as accommodation ships for various associations.

On June 17, 1919, the Imperial Navy removed all Siegfried- class units from the list of warships with the exception of the Odin . The Odin , officially in service during the summer, followed on December 6, 1919. While the Navy had five of the ships scrapped after the war, Frithjof , Odin and Aegir were bought by the Hamburg shipowner Arnold Bernstein . After a corresponding conversion, Bernstein used all three as cargo ships for several years.

modification

After just a few years of use, it became apparent that the Siegfried class was too small. In particular, the ships' low coal capacity and the resulting short range were problematic. After Alfred Tirpitz took up his post as State Secretary of the Reichsmarinamt in 1897, the navy began to consider increasing the military value of the armored ships.

Siegfried for renovation in the floating dock of the Imperial Shipyard Danzig

At this point in time, even before the First Naval Law was passed , the Imperial Navy had only a few modern armored ships with its four Brandenburg- class units . The five ships of the Kaiser Friedrich class were just under construction. An upgrade of the Siegfried class therefore seemed desirable. In addition, the naval warfare tactics developed by Tirpitz between 1892 and 1895 envisaged the use of ironclad ships in squadrons of eight ships each. A conversion made it possible to combine the Siegfried class into a single squadron. Another aspect was the question of replacing the ships with full-fledged liners. The closer the Siegfried class could be brought closer to the ships of the line, the less likely it was that this demand would be rejected.

The Navy decided to lengthen the ships by adding a center section. This technology had previously been successfully used several times on merchant ships. The Imperial Shipyards in Danzig and Kiel therefore converted all ships from 1900 to 1904 according to the model of the Hagen , which had already been modernized between 1898 and 1900 . The conversion costs averaged 2.3 million marks per ship and thus more than a third of the new construction costs. Even after the conversion, the eight ships were not fully-fledged deep-sea armored ships, but their usability was less restricted than before due to the increased range.

Accidents

The eight coastal armored ships of the Siegfried class were largely spared from serious accidents. One of the few exceptions was the bursting of the main steam pipe of the aft smoke chamber on the Siegfried on March 18, 1892. Five men of the crew died from scalding. On December 9, 1914, the Hildebrand ran aground and severely damaged the outer skin and the inner floor. This accident remained without victims. The first four ships also suffered from problems with the boiler system. The leaks that occurred in them led to failures several times.

classification

Until 1893, the ships of the Siegfried class were simply used by the Imperial Navy as "armored vehicles". After that, the name of the ship type changed in the course of a general re-classification to "Panzerschiff IV. Class". As a result of the automatic replacement for " ships of the line ", " large " and " small cruisers " laid down in the First Fleet Act, all larger units of the Imperial Navy were classified accordingly on January 1, 1899. The Siegfried class, however, classified the navy of this pattern differently than "coastal defense ships". Under this name she also mentioned the Naval Law. Nevertheless, the ships were treated as liners when they had to be replaced due to age. There were no concerns on any part of the replacement by large-line ships.

technology

Drawing of the Siegfried in its original state with the paint that was valid from 1878 to 1895

The ships of the Siegfried class had a hull made of steel and designed in transverse and longitudinal frames. The construction displacement, which comprised the operational ship with half the supply of fuel and boiler feed water, was calculated at 3,500  t . The maximum displacement of the operational ship with full supplies was 3,741 t. In the case of the last two ships, the Odin and Aegir , the design displacement increased by 50 t, but the maximum displacement only increased by around 10 t. The ships were a total of 79  m long, with the waterline at the construction displacement being 76.4 m. The maximum width of the ships was 14.9 m, while Odin and Aegir were 15.2 m. The draft at maximum displacement was 5.51 m fore and 5.74 m aft for the first six and 5.61 m fore and 5.47 m aft for the last two ships. In order to limit water ingress in the event of damage to the hull and thus increase stability, the ships were divided by seven watertight transverse bulkheads . They also had a double floor for around 60 percent of the length of the ship .

The electrical equipment of the vessels was charged with a voltage of 67  V operate. The power supply was ensured by three generators , which generated an output of 29 to 36  kW . In contrast to this, the Aegir's electrical system worked with a voltage of 120 V. A total of six generators generated an output of 243 kW.

Propulsion system

The machinery of the armored ships consisted of two standing three-cylinder - triple expansion machines, which were housed in two machine rooms arranged next to each other. The steam required was supplied by four steam locomotive boilers with a total of eight furnaces. These were distributed over two boiler rooms located one behind the other amidships. The boilers had a heating surface of 915 to 1,100 m² and generated a steam pressure of 12  atmospheres . Unlike the other units, the disposal Ägir since its construction over eight Thornycroft - water tube boiler with a heating area of 1,500 square meters. Due to the larger number of boilers, it was the only ship in its class to have two chimneys from the time it was built.

According to the construction plans, the power of the drive system should be 4,800  PSi . The real performance of the ships deviated significantly from this value and fluctuated between 4,453 PSi for the Heimdall and 5,250 PSi for the Frithjof . Both machines acted on a three-winged screw with a diameter of 3.5 m. The required maximum speed was 15  kn . However, five of the ships did not meet this requirement, with the Odin exhibiting the greatest deviation with a maximum speed of 14.4 kn. The first six units of the class carried a fuel supply of 220 tons of coal. At a cruising speed of 10 kn, the ships were able to cover a distance of 1,490  nm . Odin and Aegir received an increased fuel supply of 370 t of coal, which resulted in an increase of the range to 2,200 nm at 10 kn.

In 1894/95, the Siegfried was the first larger German warship and was the only one to be equipped with a pure oil-firing system until the light cruiser Königsberg was commissioned in 1929. The firing worked, but the fuel cost was about 2.5 times that of the other coastal armored vehicles. The ship was therefore again equipped with a coal furnace in the course of the reconstruction carried out between 1902 and 1903, but kept an additional oil furnace.

Comparison of the test drive performance before and after the conversion
Siegfried Beowulf Frithjof Heimdall Hildebrand Hagen Odin Aegir
Performance upon completion 5,022 PSi 4,859 PSi 5,250 PSi 4,453 PSi 4,608 PSi 4,608 PSi 4,650 PSi 5,129 PSi
Speed ​​of completion 14.9 kn 15.1 kn 15.0 kn 14.6 kn 14.8 kn 14.8 kn 14.4 kn 15.1 kn
Performance after renovation 4,724 PSi 5,078 PSi 5,023 PSi 5,064 PSi 5,338 PSi 5,332 PSi 5,072 PSi 5,605 PSi
Speed ​​after modification 15.3 kn 15.4 kn 15.1 kn 15.1 kn 15.3 kn 15.3 kn 15.5 kn 15.5 kn

Armament

The main armament of the Siegfried class consisted of three jacket ring cannons of the type 24 cm L / 35 C / 86 supplied by Krupp , which were also used on several ships of the Austro-Hungarian Navy . With a maximum tube elevation of 25 °, they could fire 13 km. The guns were housed individually in turrets. Two of these towers were side by side on the forecastle , the third on the bulwark . The lateral and vertical direction of the guns was hydraulic on seven ships, but electric on the Aegir . For the heavy artillery, the ships carried a total of 204 rounds of ammunition, while on Odin and Aegir there were only 174 rounds. For defense against torpedo boats, the Siegfried had six, Odin and Aegir had ten and the five other units had eight 8.8 cm L / 30 rapid loading cannons (Sk). The ammunition supply for these guns was 1,500 to 2,500 rounds. As the smallest caliber, there were also six 3.7 cm revolver cannons on board, which were omitted for Odin and Aegir . The armament was completed by four torpedo tubes with a diameter of 35 cm. One of them was permanently installed in the bow below the waterline, the others were above the water at the stern and on both sides of the ships. The last two ships of the class already had torpedo tubes with a diameter of 45 cm, whereby the stern torpedo tube was dispensed with. Ten of the 35 cm torpedoes were carried, eight of the 45 cm torpedoes.

The bow of the ships, which was designed as a ram or ram bow , acted as a further weapon . This design, already used in antiquity , found its way back into warship construction after the introduction of the ironclad and the events during the naval battle of Lissa .

Armor and protection

The armor of the ships was not uniform. The first three ships received compound armor applied to teak . At Heimdall , Hildebrand and Hagen , the nickel steel armor developed by Krupp was used in part, which was fully used on the last two ships.

The belt armor of all ships was divided into two parts. For the first six ships, it ran the entire length of the ship. The upper aisle was armored at the bow and stern with 180 mm, in the middle of the ship with 240 mm. The armor was attached to 330 mm of wood. The lower passage, which was below the waterline, had a thickness of 100 to 140 mm metal on 290 mm wood. The bow and stern of Odin and Aegir were unarmored. The upper corridor received armor of 220 mm on 180 mm wood, the lower corridor one of 120 mm metal on 280 mm wood. The armored deck , which had no side embankments, was 70 mm thick on the last two ships, which was reduced to 50 mm in the front area. The previous units only had an armored deck with a thickness of 30 mm. The command tower received horizontal armor 30 mm thick and 80 mm and 120 mm on the sides at Odin and Aegir . The domes of the turrets were uniformly protected with 30 mm metal on 200 mm wood, the barbeds were given 200 mm with a wooden base of the same thickness.

As additional protection from torpedo hits, the ships of the Siegfried class originally had side torpedo protection nets . However, these were removed again in 1897.

Conversions

  • SMS Siegfried line.png

  • Comparison of the appearance before and after the conversion based on non-to-scale side elevations of SMS Siegfried 1890 before the conversion (above) and SMS Hagen after the conversion in 1910 (below)

In the course of the reconstruction carried out by the Imperial Shipyards in Danzig and Kiel between 1898 and 1904, the ships were cut in the middle and lengthened. As a result, the construction waterline grew by 8.4 m to 84.8 m. The total length from then on measured 86.13 m, from which Odin and Aegir differed only by two centimeters. While the greatest width of these two ships increased to 15.4 m, it remained the same for the other units. The maximum draft of the ships varied and varied between 5.42 and 5.66 m forward and 5.30 and 5.66 m aft. The design displacement rose to 4,000 t, for Odin it was 4,100 t, for Aegir it was 4,110 t. The maximum displacement of the ships was between 4,237 and 4,436 t. The extension gave the ships an additional, ninth watertight compartment.

With the exception of the Aegir , all ships received a new boiler system. These were water tube boilers with a heating surface between 1,216 and 1,402 m². However, the boiler pressure remained the same. In most units, the result was a sometimes significant increase in machine performance , whereas it fell by around 200 for the Frithjof and by around 300 PSi for the Siegfried . The maximum speed of all ships rose to over 15 kn, which fulfills the original requirement. As a result of the extension, the coal capacity could be increased to 580 t, which increased the range to 3,000 nm for Odin and Aegir and up to 3,400 nm for the six other ships.

Due to the increased number of boilers, all ships received a second chimney, like the one the Aegir had since it was built. Together with the changed battle mast and the extension, this led to a significant change in the silhouette of the ships. The shipyards also revised the generators. From then on, these produced 48 to 60 kW. The on-board voltage of 67 V was retained, however. Changes were also made to the armament. The revolver cannons were omitted on all ships, but the number of 8.8 cm Sk generally rose to ten. The 35 cm torpedo tubes located above water were replaced by 45 cm diameter ones. Only the bow tube kept the smaller caliber, if it was installed at all.

In the course of the renovation, the Kaiserliche Werft Kiel made the armoring of Heimdall and Hagen completely in nickel steel. The armored deck was given a continuous thickness of 50 mm, the command tower a protection up to 160 mm thick. The upper passage of the belt armor kept its original thickness, the lower passage was reinforced in the aft area to 140 mm. The shipyard adapted the wood backing so that the overall thickness was 530 mm.

crew

The nominal strength of the crew was 20 officers and 256 NCOs and men . The Hildebrand and Aegir , which were prepared as flagships , also had space for a staff of six officers and 22 non-commissioned officers and men. After the conversion of the ships, the number of lower ranks increased to 287. The staff was also able to consist of nine officers as well as non-commissioned officers and men.

Reviews

With the Siegfried class, a ship class was created that had several major disadvantages. The ships were comparatively slow and had a small radius of action. The placement of the heavy artillery was unfavorable, as the two cannons placed on the forecastle obstructed each other and could not fire to both sides. Likewise, the ships lacked full medium artillery . The existing uncertainties regarding the further development of the torpedo weapon made the design of the underwater protection difficult. In addition, the navy budget lacked the money for extensive testing of the designs. The armor was also relatively weak, but this was due to the concept as a coastal armored ship. The lack of armor strength was to be compensated for with a bell-shaped curvature of the ship's hull based on the French model, such as the Dupuy de Lôme or the ships of the Marceau class . The armor protection of a full-fledged ship of the line could not be achieved. At the same time, the retracted upper deck enabled the front 24 cm guns to have a greater angle of fire aft.

Even after the Siegfried had been completed and tested , the first doubts arose as to whether such a class of ship would make sense at all. The armor protection in particular was viewed as too low. It turned out that, within the given financial framework, it was not possible to construct a powerful ship that could compete with enemy battleships. That was also a reason for building only eight instead of the originally planned ten units. In the book “History of the German Navy” by P. Koch, published in 1906, the latter judged that the construction of the Siegfried class “represented the implementation of an idea that urged the effort of the Navy in a direction away from its higher goals. “Added to this were the doubts expressed at the beginning of the 1890s by the magazine Neue Militärische Blätter and high-ranking naval officers, including Alfred Stenzel and Karl Ferdinand Batsch , about Caprivi's conception of coastal defense, in which the Siegfried class was created. Although the ships were useful, the coastal armor , like the armored cannon boats or coastal armored ships of other nations, represented a conceptual and constructive dead end.

Despite the relatively high conversion costs, the renovation was initially largely positively received by the navy and the public. The possible use as a closed and homogeneous squadron was an important point. The existing material should be usable as much as possible. However, the capital ships that appeared a few years later quickly made this idea obsolete. Not least for this reason, modernization came increasingly in a negative light in the following years. Their continued low military value made a swift replacement appear desirable. Von Tirpitz achieved this by reducing the replacement period for ships of the line from 25 to 20 years, which was laid down in the fleet amendment of 1908 . As a result, however, the Imperial Navy commissioned four ships of the line instead of the three usual ships of the line for the next four years, which led to an increased arms race with the Royal Navy.

Although they were only partially suitable for the ocean, the Siegfried- class units were considered good seagoing ships. Their movements were calm. The ships, which were very easy to maneuver and turn , were greedy , but lost a lot of speed in the rough seas. Heavy weather forced them to turn. Their sedate-looking roles , their squat appearance and their appearance in a larger "pack" earned the ships the nickname guinea pigs , the two fore bulges of the forward guns also led to the nickname Meerweibchen . The sea properties improved as a result of the renovation.

literature

  • Erich Gröner , Dieter Jung, Martin Maass: The German warships 1815-1945 . tape 1 : Armored ships, ships of the line, battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, gunboats . Bernard & Graefe, Munich 1982, ISBN 3-7637-4800-8 , p. 34-36 .
  • Hans H. Hildebrand, Albert Röhr, Hans-Otto Steinmetz: The German warships . Biographies - a mirror of naval history from 1815 to the present . 10 volumes. Mundus, Ratingen (licensed edition Koehler's publishing company, Hamburg approx. 1990).
  • Horst Dieter Reinhardt: Tirpitz and the German fleet idea in the years 1892–1898 . Marburg 1964 (dissertation).
  • J. Rudloff: The development of the floating material of the German navy . In: Oswald Flamm (Ed.): The entire German shipbuilding industry 1908 . Reprint of the original edition from 1908. Europäische Hochschulverlag, Bremen 2009, ISBN 978-3-86195-090-5 , p. 3-19 .
  • NN: Trials SMS “Aegir” , in: Marine-Rundschau , 9th year, 1898, pp. 396–411.

Web links

Commons : Siegfried class  - collection of images, videos and audio files

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Reinhardt, p. 6.
  2. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz: The German warships. Volume 1, p. 73.
  3. ↑ Reinhardt, p. 13.
  4. ↑ a b c d e f g Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 7, p. 168.
  5. ^ Uhle-Wettler, Franz: Alfred von Tirpitz in his time . ES Mittler & Sohn, Hamburg / Berlin / Bonn 1998, ISBN 3-8132-0552-5 , p. 51 f .
  6. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 1, p. 74
  7. ↑ Archibald, ehh: The Metal Fighting Ship in the Royal Navy from 1860 to 1970 . Blandford Press, London 1971, ISBN 0-7137-0551-5 , pp. 51 .
  8. ↑ Rudloff, p. 10.
  9. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Gröner: The German warships. Volume 1, p. 34 f.
  10. ↑ Epkenhans, Michael: The Wilhelminian Fleet Armor 1908–1914 . Striving for world power, industrial progress, social integration . R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich 1991, ISBN 3-486-55880-3 , p. 202-207 .
  11. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 7, pp. 167–170.
  12. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 2, pp. 51–54.
  13. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 3, pp. 159–161.
  14. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 4, pp. 102-104.
  15. ↑ a b Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 4, pp. 157–163.
  16. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 4, pp. 52–54.
  17. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 6, pp. 186–188.
  18. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 1, pp. 199–202.
  19. ↑ Reinhardt, p. 46 f.
  20. ↑ Reinhardt, p. 54.
  21. ↑ Uhle-Wettler, p. 367.
  22. ↑ a b Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 4, p. 53.
  23. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 4, p. 161.
  24. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 4, p. 161 f.
  25. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 8, p. 124.
  26. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 2, p. 54
  27. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 6, p. 188.
  28. ↑ Howe, Günter: Thoughts on German Defense Policy between 1871 and 1914 . In: Wilhelm Schüssler (Ed.): Striving for world power and building a fleet . Luther-Verlag, Witten 1956, p. 69 f .
  29. ↑ a b c d e Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 7, p. 169.
  30. ^ Nottelmann, Dirk: The Brandenburg class . The climax of German armored shipbuilding . E. S. Mittler & Sohn, Hamburg / Berlin / Bonn 2002, ISBN 3-8132-0740-4 , p. 70 .
  31. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 4, p. 162.
  32. ↑ Hildebrand / Röhr / Steinmetz, Volume 7, p. 170.
  33. ^ Sieche, Erwin: Kreuzer und Kreuzerprojekte of the kuk Kriegsmarine 1889-1918 . ES Mittler & Sohn, Hamburg / Berlin / Bonn 2002, ISBN 3-8132-0766-8 , p. 27 .
  34. ↑ Krieger, Eduard: Johows auxiliary book for shipbuilding (1910) . Reprint of the original edition from 1910. Volume 2 . Europäische Hochschulverlag, Bremen 2010, ISBN 978-3-86195-579-5 , pp. 909 .
  35. ↑ Werner, Reinhold : The book of the German fleet. 1893, p. 199 f.
  36. ↑ Nottelmann, p. 20.
  37. ↑ a b Rudloff, p. 11.
  38. ↑ Reinhardt, p. 55.
  39. ^ Howe, p. 73.
  40. ^ Howe, p. 59.
  41. ↑ H. Merleker: Ships also have nicknames in Die Seekiste No. 2 1951, p. 82/83
  42. ↑ Gröner, Volume 1, p. 36.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on February 27, 2011 in this version .