Search found 4152 matches

by alecsandros
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:30 am
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

These were impressive figures given an increase of almost 3000 tonnes in displacement and a hull which was found to be slightly bowed amidships - The increase of 3000 tons comes from the New York Yard refit. You forget again the values of weight added between June 1940 and July 1941, and in UK afte...
by alecsandros
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:29 am
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

The KM study, J&D and G&D are all consistent and but perhaps this is too hard for you to understand? It certainly seems so, so I'll have to leave you to it. You are mixing up tonnages because you don't know what you're doing. You don't understand basic arithmetics , intetionally misquote , and 'for...
by alecsandros
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:06 am
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

dunmunro wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:57 am
to ~40250 tonnes (J&D p.186)
J/D page 186 contains only the reference to 'her new 'normal' displacement of 43600 tonnes'.
by alecsandros
Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:16 am
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

You seem desperate to prove that a ship designed to far exceed the treaty limits (by KM admission, at least by 7000 tonnes) isn't really bigger than ships that tried to meet the treaty limit. :dance: You seem to lack basic arithmethic skills. A ship with a std. displacement of ~37800tons in June 19...
by alecsandros
Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:12 am
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

dunmunro wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:08 am
That should read full load displacement.
46453 tons KM estimate versus 47548 tons full load actual displacement after her New York refit.
by alecsandros
Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:07 am
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

The KM estimated Richelieu's standard displacement as 46750 tons (47500 tonnes) and after her USA refit Richelieu's displacement was 47721 tons (48500 tonnes). So Richelieu was 1000 tonnes above the KM estimate. The KM did not estimate Richelieu std. disp at 46750, but at 35160 tons, with intermedi...
by alecsandros
Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:48 pm
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

The KM were able to inspect the plans for Richelieu, and the via German Armistice Commission were also able to inspect the ship itself. ... To state that KM understood in March 1941 (date of the report) what tonnage additions will be done to Richelieu in 1943 (when she was finally declared fit for ...
by alecsandros
Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:46 pm
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 am

See G&D page 98 and 148(below). Richelieu fuel capacity was 6796 tons in Nov 1943 after her USA refit. Full load was 47721 tons and after removing fuel and reserve feed water and LIQUIDS we get ~40000 tons.
LIQUIDS.
by alecsandros
Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:39 pm
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 am

J&D state 5866 tonnes of fuel (p.99)
No, J/D give 5866 tonnes of fuel in PEACE TIME , and 4500 tonnes of fuel in wartime to maximize the effectiveness of the underwater protection system (pg 118).

Why haven't you presented this above ?
by alecsandros
Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:31 pm
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 6:48 pm
Removing fuel and reserve feed water = standard displacement!!!
So you compare one battleship with NO liquids inside with another battleship at STANDARD displacement ?
by alecsandros
Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:58 pm
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 am
Full load was 47721 tons and after removing fuel and reserve feed water and liquids we get ~40000 tons.
And what is the displacement of Tirpitz in 1943 after removing fuel and reserve feed water and liquids.... ?
by alecsandros
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:13 am
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

Richelieu had many additions by Nov 1943 including a huge increase in AA armament. She carried 7500 tonnes of fuel according to the KM study, plus reserve feedwater and diesel so her standard displacement was still under 40000 tons. It seems you entered the lack of comprehension dubious gang ? KM s...
by alecsandros
Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:56 am
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

for their comparison of Richelieu and Bismarck. Remember KM did not know the status in which Richelieu was. Richelieu was completed and finally declared fit for service only in Nov 1943, when she was >43.000 long tons standard and 47500 long tons full load. Thus she was practically the same std. di...
by alecsandros
Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:53 am
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

G&D state Bismarck's full load displacement as 52360 tons ( 53200 tonnes ) which is close to the KM figures for their comparison of Richelieu and Bismarck. I know. The huge full load displacement comes mainly from the large (by contemporary standards) fuel oil supply + drinking water , washing wate...
by alecsandros
Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:42 am
Forum: Bismarck General Discussion
Topic: KGV + PoW
Replies: 106
Views: 3234

Re: KGV + PoW

As I stated, there are variations in which weights are included to calculate standard displacement. When the the RN compared KGV to USS Washington in a classified wartime study (in much the same way that the KM compared Bismarck to Richelieu) the RN used 36730 tons as KGV's standard displacement ve...