Scharnhorst Class Specs: Armor Thickness

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi all,
I'm looking for the actual armored deck/slopes thicknesses in Scharnhorst class. (I beg pardon if the topic has been already discussed.....)
I have found several inconsistencies/errors in the most prized books on the topic: Garzke-Dulin, Koop-Schmolke etc. and I must admit that my German language knowledge (based only on translators.... ) doesn't allow me to understand E.Groner book (where I see anyway strange figures like 20-50-20/105) that are difficult to relate to the other texts.

My understanding (interpreting the above sources) is the following:
Upper deck:
50mm Wh

Armored deck over magazines:
95mm Wh at "centre"
95mm Wh at "sides"
110mm Wh at "slopes" (25° inclined)

Armored deck over machinery: (see drawing below)
80mm Wh at "centre"
80 or 95 Wh at "sides" ?
105mm Wh at "slopes" (25° inclined)

I would be mostly grateful if anyone can confirm my above understanding and mostly solve the question mark about the armored deck over machinery at "sides" (between the slopes and the central section).


Bye, Alberto

Scharnhorst_Class_Armor.jpg (42.86 KiB) Viewed 8987 times

[Thorsten Wahl]

Sidearmor 320 mm KC

Armour deck over machinery all 80 mm
Armour deck slopes 105 mm

[Herr Nilsson]

According to the specification of the hull:


Upper deck:
generally 50mm Wh, but
60mm Wh surrounding barbettes main artillery
80mm Wh surrounding barbettes secondary artillery

Armored deck over magazines:
95mm Wh between turrets A and D, 105 mm in front of turret A and behind D at "centre"
105mm Wh at "sides"
105mm Wh at "slopes" (25° inclined)

Armored deck over machinery: (see drawing below)
80mm Wh at "centre"
105mm Wh at "sides"
105mm Wh at "slopes" (25° inclined)

The longitudinal bulkheads are 40mm Wh and not 20mm.
Sidearmor above main belt is 35mm Wh.

Edit: ...and Thorsten is right in regard of the 320mm mainbelt.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Thorsten, hi Marc,
I do thank you both so much for the information !

To my surprise, they confirm the data in M.J.Whitley's very good book (see scheme below, unfortunately very partial from the Italian version), that I had not trusted (regarding these figures at least) until now..... and they totally contradict some "sacred" texts like Koop-Schmolke and Garzke-Dulin (among the others... e.g. Bredemeier, etc.). Groner too (even if I cannot read him) seems to give quite different figures.

Main belt is described by all authors I have seen (except Whitley) as 350 mm KC (indeed surprisingly thick) and only Garze-Dulin say it was 320 mm KC in the text, while including sections at various frames with thickness = 350 KC, therefore I guessed they just made a mistake in the text. Only Whitley underlines that it was 320 mm instead of 350 mm.....
Could you please tell me what is the primary source for the 320 mm thickness ?

Slopes: here both Garzke-Dulin and Koop-Schmolke say 110 mm slopes at turret "A" and "B" (105 mm at turret "C" for Koop_Schmolke).
Wasn't the slope augmented fore (possibly to compensate the increased inclination of the slope due to the narrow bow) ?

Armored deck: for the deck over machinery, almost no doubt 80 mm Wh, in the central part, but for the horizontal side part before the slope authors are divided between 80mm and 95mm. Only Whitley says 105 mm (equal to the slope, that is quite surprising as the slope presents a worse inclination to an incoming shell....)
Could you please give me some more info about the source to be used (and how I could possibly get it) ?

Finally, only Whitley is correct about the longitudinal bulkhead protecting machinery (40mm) and the (surprisingly thin) upper "belt" (35 mm)


Bye, Alberto

Whitley_Corazzatura_SH_01_reduced.jpg (99.28 KiB) Viewed 8931 times

[Thorsten Wahl]

Have a copy of the original K-Amt drawing -Panzerdicken - available.

But not from here (Im in hospital for 3 weeks).

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Thorsten,
first of all, best wishes for your hospitalization !

I would be very interested to get a copy of the material if available. I 'll get in touch as soon as you are back at home.
Is the "original K-Amt drawing -Panzerdicken" referred to the actual ships or to the ships "as designed" ?


Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

Alberto, you have got mail. (I hope your IBM adress still works.)

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Marc,
it does. Many, many thanks !


Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nilsson wrote: "Upper deck: generally 50mm Wh, but 60mm Wh surrounding barbettes main artillery, 80mm Wh surrounding barbettes secondary artillery"

Hi Marc,
from the above Whitley drawings (at secondary turrret frame), it looks like the 80 mm upper deck surrounding the aft secondary turret (that in your mail you suggested to be a reinforcement more than a protection measure) was quite extended (going externally up to the side of the ship and internally up to the superstructure, possibly around 3 meters around the turret).

Do you think it was the same for the main turrets with the 60 mm upper deck extending around the barbette up to the sides of the ship (for around 6 meters on each side in case of "B" turret, less for "A" and "C") ?

Do you think such a "wide" extension of extra-armor was needed just as a reinforcement ?


Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

Do you think it was the same for the main turrets with the 60 mm upper deck extending around the barbette up to the sides of the ship (for around 6 meters on each side in case of "B" turret, less for "A" and "C") ?

I don't know. It depends on the arrangement of the plating. To answer this question we need the plan "Beplattung und Balken des Oberdecks".

Do you think such a "wide" extension of extra-armor was needed just as a reinforcement ?

It's just an educated guess, but yes I still think so. I don't have my BBV-S (special specification for the hull) for Scharnhorst at hand, but in the BBV-S for Bismarck and Tirpitz it's talked about "Dopplungsplatten", a word that I generally used in regard of reinforcement. Additionally the ABV-S (general specification for the hull) orders to take longitudinal strength into account. Furthermore there is a subitem "Verstärkungen" (reinforcements) where is said that "...für Verstärkungen des Decks im Bereich der Geschütze ... [sind] die besonderen Bauunterlagen zu beachten..." (in regard of reinforcements of the decks in the vicinity of the guns take the BBV into account).
Or the other way round: I can't remember that thicker deck armor was ever mentioned in terms of extra-protection in any specification or plan I've read in the last 15 years.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Marc,
again many thanks for your answer.

Does anybody have this "Beplattung und Balken des Oberdecks" to check how far from the main barbettes was this extra thickness extending around ?


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Have a copy of the original K-Amt drawing -Panzerdicken - available.

But not from here (Im in hospital for 3 weeks).

Just read this. I hope all goes well.

[Paul L]

Have a copy of the original K-Amt drawing -Panzerdicken - available.

But not from here (Im in hospital for 3 weeks).

Just read this. I hope all goes well.

Yeah ditto on dat.

[Thorsten Wahl]

Scharnhorst official drawing
RM 20/1913
Allgemeine Typfragen für Schlachtschiffe, Panzerschiffe und Kreuzer 10.02.1939-11.12.1939
Scharnhorst - Gneisenau"
Gewichte abgerundete und zwischen beiden Schiffen gemittelte Zahlen.
B.Nr. A V 309 /39 Gkdos vom 3./5. Mai 1939

Panzerdicken Scharnhorst2.jpg (119.99 KiB) Viewed 7040 times

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Thorsten,
so many thanks for your help here !

Do you have any additional info/confirmation regarding the increased thickness of deck armor around the barbettes of the main and secondary turrets ?

Was, in your opinion, this increased armor a mere structural reinforcement or an extra protection for the magazines ?


Bye, Alberto