Tirpitz and Gneisenau main armor belt thickness etc.

[TTTT]

I noticed on this excellent site, that under "Kriegsmarine warships", Scharnhorst is given a main belt armor thickness of 320mm, while her sister Gneisenau has 350mm. I guess this is a mistake, and the former value is the correct for both? I see a lot of web sites and even books use 350mm for both ships - what is the origin of this value? Is it just the normal "author laziness" - one author write one thing, and following authors just copying? Just like the "exposed cables", "updated Baden" etc.?

Furthermore, Bismarck has a main belt of 320mm, while her sister Tirpitz is given 315mm. I don't doubt this is correct, but again I see most other sites and books use the same value - 320mm - for both ships. Also, on this site, on the comparing page, Tirpitz's main belt is tapering off to 170mm, but no mention of Bismarck's doing the same? Again, this seems to be mixed up several places - did both ship's main belt taper off to 170mm, or just Tirpitz's?

As built, the dimensions of Bismarck and Tirpitz were almost identical, with the latter being a whopping 20 tons heavier and 17cm longer at the waterline. Now, Tirpitz shaved off quite some amount of armor; 5mm main belt, 30mm deck armor over the machinery (while adding 5mm over the magazines), and more than 100mm on the rear plates of the main gun turrets. How come she still was marginally heavier? The machinery?

[hans zurbriggen]

Hello Mr. TTT,
AFAIK, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had same max belt thickness of 320 mm. 350 mm is an error, repeated in many publications, and refers to a second proposed project (slower but more heavily armored) that was not approved. (please see discussion here: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =13&t=8257)

Also Bismarck and Tirpitz had same max belt armor thickness of 320 mm (and same armor thickness almost everywhere else, decks included with possibly only very limited exceptions). (please see: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 575#p38575)

hans

[TTTT]

Thanks for the reply.

So we are only left with the rear plates of the main gun turrets as a significant difference between Bismarck and Tirpitz?

[Thorsten Wahl]

both 320 mm

[José M. Rico]

Scharnhorst vs Bismarck armor comparison.

Main Frame.

[TTTT]

Thanks!

[Herr Nilsson]

As built, the dimensions of Bismarck and Tirpitz were almost identical, with the latter being a whopping 20 tons heavier and 17cm longer at the waterline. Now, Tirpitz shaved off quite some amount of armor; 5mm main belt, 30mm deck armor over the machinery (while adding 5mm over the magazines), and more than 100mm on the rear plates of the main gun turrets. How come she still was marginally heavier? The machinery?

What's the source of all this? Especially the 17 cm length, the 30 mm deck armor and the 100 mm of the rear plate?

[TTTT]

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck_c ... rpitz.html

I was wrong about the site, it wasn't this site. And it wasn't the rear turrets, but the rear barbettes.

[Herr Nilsson]

Thank you. I recommend to forget this aggregation of data.