Kriegsmarine - KM Ship Plans/Discussion

Try adding details, like some ropes, cables, antennas, capstans, winches, bitts and fairleads, anchors, boats etc
 
Last edited:
I have plans of a few kms ships and books about them
 
Seems to be, but my question is how were they supposed to place those twenty 127mm? They definitely would put 5 or 6 next to the bridge but what about the rest?
 
I think that is 20 barrels eg 10 twin mount so the rest would be on sponsons, or a single barrel mount was considered
 
Force Lord said:
Unfortunately no. At least, not published. If there's anything in the Kriegsmarine archives it's probably not yet digitized in Invenio.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say armor wise, it probably was similar to the A-III C variant, or anything of the A series.
 
MrMemerMan said:
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say armor wise, it probably was similar to the A-III C variant, or anything of the A series.
Click to expand...
Whitley actually mentions that the German aircraft cruisers had variants that were pure carriers, however he gives no outlines of these versions.
 
goofygoober20000 said:
I think it could have been a SK C/34 (the only 127mm in kriegsmarine) or a completely different design
Click to expand...
The passage outright calls them "DP guns", so assumedly the author is not referring to the standard C/34 guns in SP mountings.
Of course, this doesn't narrow it down at all: this could be the LM/41 twin mounting for the DDs (although that one is only 52 degrees max elevation -- perhaps a different version would reach 70 degrees, as I recall the single mount did?)
It could also be the KM 40 (128/61), or the "12.7cm Doppelflak" whose documents are is in the weaponry folder.

(The fact they are called "127mm" in the passage is probably just a designation quirk, the same as British 113mm guns being called "114mm", and German 149mm guns being called "150mm".)
 
goofygoober20000 said:
Very interesting...
Click to expand...
So they were looking at what was effectively (in some respects at least) a Battlecarrier design though the alternate interpretation of it being a German equivalent to the Midway-class has merit as well, along with a 'Flight-deck cruiser' design, both for use in a post-war period following what was still then seen as a inevitable Axis victory.
 
Seeing as so much incorrect information was spread about the armor scheme of the Scharnhorsts, do we have any (verified) plans or drawings of the armor of the Bismarck class and the H class?
It seems odd that the Bismarck armor scheme would look so different from the Scharnhorst scheme.
1740289554303.png
1740289684264.png
 
YourChair said:
Seeing as so much incorrect information was spread about the armor scheme of the Scharnhorsts, do we have any (verified) plans or drawings of the armor of the Bismarck class and the H class?
It seems odd that the Bismarck armor scheme would look so different from the Scharnhorst scheme.
View attachment 760526
View attachment 760527
Click to expand...
I don't think there is for H39. Either lost or buried somewhere in some container at BAMA.

There is a similar one to your Scharnhorst on Tirpitz, but that's probably "as planned", and not an "as fitted" plan.

Bismarck horizontal armour deck over the forward magazine wasn't 100 mm but 95 mm, or the main mast upper lookout wasn't 60 mm, but 55 mm by the time they finished construction. And who knows what else more was different.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom