Sinking of the Konigsberg

On the night of 8th/9th April 1940 German forces invaded Norway. In the early morning of the 9th German naval force landed troops in Bergen harbour, support being given by the two cruisers Königsberg and Köln, the gunnery training ship Bremse together with torpedo-boats, E-boats and armed trawlers. The Norwegian harbour defences were hampered by…

On the night of 8th/9th April 1940 German forces invaded Norway. In the early morning of the 9th German naval force landed troops in Bergen harbour, support being given by the two cruisers Königsberg and Köln, the gunnery training ship Bremse together with torpedo-boats, E-boats and armed trawlers. The Norwegian harbour defences were hampered by fog, and confused by the fact that the German force approached flying British flags. However the Kvarvan battery guarding the entrance to the harbour did score hits on the Königsberg, Bremse and the E-boat tender Carl Peters. The Königsberg’s engines were damaged and two of her 3.7 cm anti aircraft gun positions put out of action, her fire-fighting mains and auxiliary power were also damaged. This did not stop her guns firing on the Norwegian coastal batteries around Bergen. Later that day (9th April) a reconnaissance flight by the RAF revealed the two cruisers to be in harbour and a strike by Bomber Command was launched. Two formations from two different RAF Wellington bomber squadrons attacked at about 18:30 hrs and dropped thirty 500 lb bombs but not a single hit was achieved, although one was claimed and a machine gun attack by one of the Wellingtons killed three members of Köln’s crew and five were wounded*. At about 20:00 hrs a squadron of Hampdens dropped bombs over Bergen, but again no hits were obtained.

The Germans knew that a force of Royal Navy cruisers was off the coast heading for Bergen and they feared this force would catch their ships in harbour. The Königsberg was unfit to sail and so was moored alongside the Skoltegrund Mole with her stern towards the harbour entrance so that two of her three triple 5.9 inch turrets and her port torpedo tubes could engage any Royal Navy ship that attempted to enter. With radio equipped spotters on the hills west of Bergen the Königsberg could also have employed her guns to bring plunging fire onto any ships approaching Bergen up the channel from the South, between the coastline and the archipelago of offshore islands. Only the front half of the cruiser was alongside the mole, perhaps to make use of the cruiser’s Arado floatplane easier, or perhaps to allow the use of the crane at the end of the mole to help with repairs. The cruisers position would also have allowed her to be run astern and sunk as a blockship to seal off the inner harbour in the event of a British assault. In fact the British force off the Norwegian coast was heavily damaged by German bombers that day loosing the destroyer Gurkha, and in any event the force had been ordered by the Admiralty not to try and retake Bergen. That night the Köln made her escape along with the torpedo boats Leopard and Wolf.

via Sinking of the Konigsberg.

When I think of the German Kreigsmarine in World War II, I naturally think first of the U-Boats, and then maybe of the Bismark and Tripitz.

But while the German fleet was never of a size to directly challenge the Royal Navy, it was hardly insignificant.

The invasion of Norway was heavily supported by the fleet, and this post takes a look at one incident in that unhappy (for the British) campaign.

The Konigsberg and her sister ships were interesting. Three turrets with three ~6″ guns per turret was a fairly typical armament. But most cruisers had two turrets forward, and one aft. Konigsberg and her sisters had one turret forward, and two aft. The linked article gives a tactical rational in that the ship would benefit from greater firepower while fleeing heavier opponents. I suspect also that it had some benefit in internal arrangements and hull strength as well as seakeeping. The short forecastle would mean that even fairly modest seas would break over the forward mounts.

Oddly, the after turrets were staggered to port and starboard from the centerline. Of the top of my head, I can’t recall any other major WWII era warships that had turrets in such an arrangement, and I can’t determine why this was done, except perhaps to keep overall length of the ship down, and to meet certain treaty requirements.

Tags:

  1. Tarl

    My Osprey book says the intent of the staggered rear turrets was to allow them to have some ability to fire forward.

    Like

  2. Quartermaster

    That seems a strange reason. If the traditional arrangement were followed, there would be 6 guns able to fire forward through the full forward arc. that would not have been possible with two rear turrets, even with the staggered arrangement. I suspect it had a structural reason.

    Like

  3. LT Rusty

    They weren’t trying to get full 360° arcs out of the rear turrets, but you might be able to get something like 30° off the bow for the side to which the turret was offset.

    Like

  4. Quartermaster

    You would not have gotten 360 degree arcs up front either. No turret has that available, unless you somehow place it at the highest point on the ship, then the moments induced during firing would have strange effects on stability. You would actually get more coverage, perhaps as much 290 degrees in front, rather than in back.

    Perhaps the Germans were anticipating a stern chase, in which case the offset turrets would interfere with each less, and give better firepower on the pursuer.

    Like

  5. Tarl

    Quartermaster, yes, the Germans expected that the cruiser would have to run from a superior force, and therefore deliberately put most of their firepower in the stern.

    As it says in the original post — “The linked article gives a tactical rational in that the ship would benefit from greater firepower while fleeing heavier opponents.”

    Like

  6. Shaun Evertson

    And then there were the Nelsons, with all the main guns forward…

    Like

  7. Tarl

    British ships don’t run away. =)

    But that design was totally driven by the naval treaty, not operational considerations.

    Like

Leave a comment