Prinz Eugen

[PBKing]

I have a photo of the Prinz Eugen as she appears now, taken in Dec. 2008. Anyone interested?

[astraltrader]

Welcome to the forum - we would certainly be interested in seeing your picture! :)

[PBKing]

Here is the Prinz Eugen in December 2008. I took the picture so no worry about my right to post it.
92008

[MelQuick]

Hi PBKing

Welcome to the forum.

Brilliant picture! We'd certainly be interested in any other pics you may have taken.

Mel

[designeraccd]

Definately would like to see any other pics of her. Meanwhile, some views from her better days.........DFO ;)

[valentinbusuioc]

Great pictures - however, #2 and #3 definetely not Prinz Eugen in dry-dock. I suspect it could be the light cruiser Emden. Prinz Eugen had a three screws/two rudder arrangement. Also the bow - definetelly not an Atlantic-bow.

[designeraccd]

Good points; had forgotten she had 3 screws. Obviously not a "Atlantik" bow, and unlike Hipper...she was built with that wasn't she? Oops! Mislabeled photos!

Well, how about these..........DFO ;)

[oldsalt]

Thanks for t6hose pics, a good looking ship.

[designeraccd]

She was quite handsome, although her power plant, like many other KMS was a bit "troublesome"...as the USN found out post war! DFO :eek:

These were courtesy of our absent friend "Miro" (MMM)

[NASAAN101]

Guys.
there my little Girl:P RIP old Girl!
Nikki

[valentinbusuioc]

Yes, designeraccd - great Prinz Eugen's pictures those two, also.
Like the first batch of Kriegsmarine's heavy cruisers (Admiral Hipper and Bluecher), when launched on 22 August 1938 Prinz Eugen's hull was fitted with straight stem, with anchor chains going through "classic" hoses.
Later on during fitting-out, the cruiser had the bow changed so when delivered she had that handsome look as in your pictures.
The two never-completed sisters (Lutzow and Seydlitz) were both launched with Atlantic bows.

[designeraccd]

Hipper and Blucher for comparison; early views of both.........DFO ;)

[PBKing]

I recall reading an article many years ago that asserted it was the plunging fire from Prinz Eugen's main battery that sank HMS Hood rather than the more horizontal fire from the Bismark. Is that now the accepted theory or is it still controversial?

[patroclus]

I recall reading an article many years ago that asserted it was the plunging fire from Prinz Eugen's main battery that sank HMS Hood rather than the more horizontal fire from the Bismark. Is that now the accepted theory or is it still controversial?

If there is a generally accepted theory (?) it may be that PRINZ EUGEN may have started the fires aft in HOOD (unrotated projectiles/ready-use 4" ammunition) but that it was a shell/shells from BISMARCK that sank the HOOD.