K class cruisers

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
Post Reply
User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 02:38
Location: Toronto
Contact:

K class cruisers

#1

Post by admfisher » 29 Aug 2002, 04:00

Did you know the reason for the staggered turrets on the rear of the K class cruisers?
Well I have updated this section of my page and given a little light on the topic of these ships.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/admfisher/html/kclass.html
:mrgreen:
Grant
Attachments
tn_kclass1.jpg
K class turrets.
tn_kclass1.jpg (6.94 KiB) Viewed 7044 times

varjag
Member
Posts: 4431
Joined: 01 May 2002, 02:44
Location: Australia

Koln,Karlsruhe and Konigsberg

#2

Post by varjag » 29 Aug 2002, 13:05

The positioning of the rear turrets (unique as far as I know) DID have some point relation to arcs of fire.More importantly, with 2/3rds of the artillery aft and only 1/3rd up front 'there was little question about what course would be taken when in trouble'. ( I pinched that from 'German Cruisers' of c:a 1985)


User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 02:38
Location: Toronto
Contact:

K class

#3

Post by admfisher » 29 Aug 2002, 22:20

The hint that they were built for running away is based off, there heaviest armament on the rear.
Which is totally false...
In a scouting role they would approach and gain info on the enemy then run back to the main fleet to pass on the info and to take there place in the fleet for upcoming action.
Now in the retreat back to the main fleet they figured that they would be pursued. Thus the two turret on the rear.
The reason to stagger the turrets was to allow them to fire up over the forward part of the ship. In practise this worked but in reality it was not what was really needed or wanted.
If you look at other light cruiser of the time and the ones building using twin turrets you will see the K class carred one more barrel but on the fore part of the ship they would only have the three. Where to twin would be at an advantage.

User avatar
Erik E
Member
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 23:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Contact:

#4

Post by Erik E » 29 Aug 2002, 23:17

to stagger the turrets was to allow them to fire up over the forward part of the ship
If this actually happened, no one could have been on deck...... Everybody would have to seek shelter inside the ship befor the guns could be fired, and that would make the ship a great target for attacking planes!

EE

User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 02:38
Location: Toronto
Contact:

K class

#5

Post by admfisher » 30 Aug 2002, 02:33

It is not uncommon for crew members to have to take shelter from the main guns. But on the K Class they would only be used a high elavation while firing forward.
But as it was they were a failure, the Nurneburg and Leipzig went back center line mounting for the turrets.

If you dont believe that the K class could fire forward look into the book the German Navy at War 1935 - 1945 vol 1 by Siefried Bryer and Gerhard Koop.

Now these authors are hard to dispute.

User avatar
Erik E
Member
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 23:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Contact:

#6

Post by Erik E » 30 Aug 2002, 19:51

If you dont believe that the K class could fire forward
Of course I believe you! I just think that it`s not the best idea for all personell to get inside in the middle of a battle.......
This is ofcourse my personal oppinion, and I don`t doubt that it actually happened (but maybe only in "emergency"?)

EE

User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 02:38
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Main guns

#7

Post by admfisher » 30 Aug 2002, 20:55

The Yamato's crew were all under shelter when the main guns fired. The AA pits had to stronger than normal just to with stand the main gun blast.

In WWI ships that fired cross deck mainly midships turrets had to have all the crew in area in shelters.

Having the crew of a ship with anything more than an 8 in on deck is very dangours. Even 5, 6, and 8 in guns were hard as heck on the crew. James Fahley in the book Pacific War Diary mentions that the crack of the 5 in guns were the worse on the whole ship. He was on the USN Monteplier, a Clevland class. !2x6 in. 6x5 in the fives in twins and the sixes in triples. He was a 40 mm gunner stationed by the bridge so right with the 5 and 6 in guns, and his cruiser was in most of the us naval battles in the Pacific from the time of it's arrival.

User avatar
Erik E
Member
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 23:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Contact:

#8

Post by Erik E » 30 Aug 2002, 21:08

And I guess hearing protection had low priority! :?

EE

User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 02:38
Location: Toronto
Contact:

main guns

#9

Post by admfisher » 31 Aug 2002, 05:29

In his book he says that it was incredible to be firing all guns such as close shore work.

On Yamato, the comment should of been that the all deck areas where crew may be outside when the main guns where fired, were covered and lightly armoured.

To think that one main gun turret was 3200 tons imagine the tanks that could of armored!
:mrgreen:

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#10

Post by Andy H » 31 Aug 2002, 13:31

Hi Admfisher

Triple turrets were adopted for the first time in German crusiers to reduce the hull length and electric welding was employed to save on weight.The gun disposistion should be looked at in the light of their designed role, scouting, when a chase action would be more probable than an attack. The reason for the offsetting is obscure. If it was intended to improve ahead arcs, it was only marginal, and was not repeated in later designs.

Source:Cruisers of WW2 by M.J.Whitley

:D Andy from the Shire

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 20:04
Location: Romania

Re: Main guns

#11

Post by Ovidius » 31 Aug 2002, 14:43

admfisher wrote:Having the crew of a ship with anything more than an 8 in on deck is very dangours. Even 5, 6, and 8 in guns were hard as heck on the crew. James Fahley in the book Pacific War Diary mentions that the crack of the 5 in guns were the worse on the whole ship. He was on the USN Monteplier, a Clevland class. !2x6 in. 6x5 in the fives in twins and the sixes in triples. He was a 40 mm gunner stationed by the bridge so right with the 5 and 6 in guns, and his cruiser was in most of the us naval battles in the Pacific from the time of it's arrival.
Reportedly, when Bismarck fired five salvoes at the British heavy cruiser Norfolk(May 23, 1941, 2030 hours) with her main battery, the shock of the eight giant guns detonating simultaneously had put temporarily the forward radar out of action - reason for which Admiral Lutjens had signalled Prinz Eugen to sail forward.

~Ovidius

User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 02:38
Location: Toronto
Contact:

#12

Post by admfisher » 31 Aug 2002, 23:00

Whitley's cruiser book I have. It is good but general in details of the ships. For a little more detail on the turrets check, Gerhard Koop and Breyer Siegfried's The German Navy at War 1939 to 1945 vol 1.

As for this "Reportedly, when Bismarck fired five salvoes at the British heavy cruiser Norfolk(May 23, 1941, 2030 hours) with her
main battery, the shock of the eight giant guns detonating simultaneously had put temporarily the forward radar out of action - reason for which Admiral Lutjens had signalled Prinz Eugen to sail forward."
The US navy off of Guadalcanal in there night action with the two battleships had the same proble the when the opened fire. The lead bb the Washington or South Dak lost it's radar due to the recoil effect.
When people talk of radar on ships in WWII they often forget how sensitive it was.

User avatar
Erik E
Member
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 23:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway
Contact:

#13

Post by Erik E » 01 Sep 2002, 20:05

A guidetold us that the pressure in front of the barrel on the 40,6CM at Harstad could reach 550 Tonnes! Every door in the surrounding bunkers had to be sealed prior to fireing.....

And in Bergen, at the Gneisenau tripple 28CM turret, 2 soldiers were killed by the first test shot!
Attachments
trondenes.jpg
trondenes.jpg (24.68 KiB) Viewed 6932 times

User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002, 02:38
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Yamato's 18.1

#14

Post by admfisher » 01 Sep 2002, 20:26

The Yamato's 18.1 in guns were measured at 15 m's, to be 15 lbs per 0.39 square in, 7kg/1cm square , double that of the 16 in guns thet were compred to.

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10550
Joined: 20 Mar 2005, 12:48
Location: Argentina

Re: K class cruisers

#15

Post by tigre » 03 Aug 2019, 00:12

Hello to all :D; a little on this subject..........................

Staggered turrets on the rear of the K class cruisers.

The special feature of the cruisers of the K-class was, that for the first time in the history of the German Navy, they had three triple turrets as the main armament. The arrangement of the triple turrets was new because they had not two of them in bow position and the third aft, but the order of the turrets was exactly the opposite. In addition, the two rear turrets were not as usual in the middle of the ship, but laterally displaced from the axis. Due to the fact that the turret "Berta" was shifted 2.25 meters to port and turret "Caesar" 1.95 meters to starboard, a better utilization of the Traversing range was achieved, so that the turrets could fire ahead a few degrees further to port or starboard.

Source: http://www.leichter-kreuzer-karlsruhe.d ... Berta.html

Cheers. Raúl M 8-).

Post Reply

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”