BS & oil tanker(s): Wollin.

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

costas
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:42 pm
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

BS & oil tanker(s): Wollin.

Post by costas »

Referring on the 21 May events at Kalvanes Bay and Grimstadfjord:

How long does it take to refuel PE from 50% up to 100% of capacity?
Refueling started not earlier than 1000 (my guess) and completed at 1700.
The 3 destroyers refueled from a local tanker in Bergen.

Had Wollin enough fuel (or time) for Bismarck?
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: BS & oil tanker(s): Wollin.

Post by Vic Dale »

To Costas.

According to PG's War Diary oil was transferred at a rate of 250 to 300 cu m. (or tons) per hour. Anything faster might rupture the hoses. Fuelling began at 1345 and completed at 1700. PG finished with 3233 tons, just 17 tons short (2 hours steaming) of her maximum capacity of 3250 tons.

As far as Bismarck is concerned there was no need to worry. She had enough and more to make the Atlantic, stooge around for a week and keep PG supplied should the need arise, with her nominal 8300 tons capacity, which was sufficient for her to steam at 27 knots for about 8 days, or cruise for 19 days.

Entering Norway or not was included in the operational orders so if it had been thought necessary to fuel the flagship, tankers would have been standing by.

At 19 knots (normal cruising) Bismarck burned just 18 tons of fuel per hour. At 24 knots (service speed for the breakout) she would burn 30 tons and at her battle speed 28 knots she would burn 50 tons per hour. 30 knots would consume 100 tons per hour.

There are certain indications that Bismarck may have filled her counter-flooding voids forward and aft in order to further extend her range.

I will develop these and other ideas about Bismarck's fuel state in a dedicated thread, unless you think it is approriate for this one.

Despite all that has been said, Bismarck was never short of oil, except that fuelling PG would not be possible with enemy cruisers around and nor would she be able to refuel herself until she had shaken them off. Her signal asking when she could expect oil, was either a blind intended for reception by the British, or was simply a routine inquiry about refuelling on reaching France.

Vic Dale
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: BS & oil tanker(s): Wollin.

Post by RF »

The original orders for Rheinubung was that Lutjens had the option to refuel Bismarck from tanker Weissenburg, stationed west of Jan Mayen in the Arctic.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: BS & oil tanker(s): Wollin.

Post by Vic Dale »

Yes Lutjens had the option to bunker from Wiessenburg, though he was not obliged to. Wiessenburg would take station anyway in case she was needed.

Fleet Orders to PG stated that the squadron would not enter Kors Fiord weather permitting - meaning that poor visibility would make for an unobserved passage through the Great Belt and into the North Sea and make for a fast passage North without need to put into the Fiords. Wollin was standing by ready to bunker PG in any case. It would have been a simple matter to have had another tanker on standby to top Bismarck's bunkers off, on the off-chance that the squadron put in if it was felt necessary. She would need only 1000 tons to make up consumption since leaving Gotenhafen and that would not be hard to find. Bunkering would take no more than an hour longer than for PG.

Clearly SKL and the Fleet Commander paid due attention to any need to refuel the squadron by having Wollin ready for PG and will have actively taken a decision about Bismarck's fuel with regard to a short stop-over in Norway. If it had been felt necessary to refuel Bismarck they could easily have sailed a tanker in company with the squadron to Norway had nothing been available in Kors Fiord. Given the long term nature of the operational planning, I am in no doubt they would have got a tanker there in advance had there been need of one.

Far and away the most important consideration in the whole operation was PG's poor endurance figures and the constant need to keep her oil stocks up.

Vic Dale
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: BS & oil tanker(s): Wollin.

Post by RF »

Vic Dale wrote: Far and away the most important consideration in the whole operation was PG's poor endurance figures and the constant need to keep her oil stocks up.

Vic Dale
Which underlines the basic weakness in the German position in not strategically pre-planning for a war with Britain - and why some of the hilfskreuzer were so much more successful in the job.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
costas
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:42 pm
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Re: BS & oil tanker(s): Wollin.

Post by costas »

Thanks for the replies.

As I understand it now, the situation at 1700 hours 21.05 is:
* Wollin may or may not had enough fuel for Bismarck. (anyone agrees/disagrees?)
* In case she had:
it would take a couple of hours to reach Bismarck. (narrow fjords, low speed, pilots aboard etc.)
Then it would take at least 1 hour (rate: 250-300 m3/h) for the replenishment.

My estimate is should Wollin had refuelled both ships, then Bismarck would had weighted anchor
not earlier than 2100. The sooner the ships could leave the fjords, the better.
(At around midnight planes dropped bombs over Kalvanes Bay.)
Vic Dale wrote: There are certain indications that Bismarck may have filled her counter-flooding voids forward and aft in order to further extend her range.

I will develop these and other ideas about Bismarck's fuel state in a dedicated thread, unless you think it is approriate for this one.
Vic Dale
yes, that would be interesting, (though complicated) please go on.
Vic Dale wrote: Despite all that has been said, Bismarck was never short of oil, except that fuelling PG would not be possible with enemy cruisers around and nor would she be able to refuel herself until she had shaken them off. Her signal asking when she could expect oil, was either a blind intended for reception by the British, or was simply a routine inquiry about refuelling on reaching France.

Vic Dale
Generally I agree with the above, BS was never short of oil, though (at the moment) I can't provide anything concrete (ie numbers and figures) to support it.
I hope we will present some arguments about it later.
costas
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:42 pm
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Re: BS & oil tanker(s): Wollin.

Post by costas »

RF wrote:The original orders for Rheinubung was that Lutjens had the option to refuel Bismarck from tanker Weissenburg, stationed west of Jan Mayen in the Arctic.
That's important information: Jan Mayen island. Sources (L. Kennedy, Baron) mention the position of Weissenburg only in general, eg. Arctic, Arctic Ocean etc.

Is a more exact position of the tanker known? (eg. 150 nm to the west of Jan Mayen)
What was the approximate position of the other tanker, Heide?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: BS & oil tanker(s): Wollin.

Post by RF »

Presumably only from the log of that ship.

Jan Mayen itself was icebound, even in May, Weissenburg would be some way to the WSW.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply