Bismarck Speed

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
hammy
Senior Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:52 pm
Location: by the Norfolk Broads , England .

Re: Speed - Bismarck versus Scharnhorst/Gneisenau

Post by hammy » Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:39 pm

Mmmm , the point I was making was that in the case of Italy and in France their procurement was unsound prior to WW2 in that the trials were run in unrealistic conditions ( armament not fitted , ships run in very light condition and trimmed for maximum speed , fair weather , propulsion plant considerably over-pressed , etc ) to achieve a high speed figure and obtain a fat bonus for the ( ephemeral ) extra performance .
These high speeds were then reported widely as the ships normal war loaded performance , hollow claims that would show up when the ships finally went into combat and proved to be far more ordinary than their reputations would lead you to expect .

The fundamental law of Naval Design which is " that Foriegn Rivals must always be given credit for having solved problems which your own design teams find impossible " , kept admirals awake and worrying for years though :lol:
" Relax ! No-one else is going to be fool enough to be sailing about in this fog ."

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Speed - Bismarck versus Scharnhorst/Gneisenau

Post by dunmunro » Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:08 pm

21/7/40 Bismarck = 38840/38540/38678 MT,during inclining test so empty Mean = 38646 MT

12/11/40 FO= 4439 cu/m = 4217 MT (.95 specific gravity) + 616 tons FW =5055 MT + 38646 tons = 43701 MT + whatever additions have been made between the inclining test and the speed trial.

minimum probable weights include:

ammo = 200mt
consumable = 50mt
crew = 120mt
provisions = 60mt
Drinking water = 40mt
diesel/lube oil = 90 mt
---------------------------
560 mt

43701mt + 560mt = 44261 tons - fuel burnt prior and during the test = minimum probable displacement = ~44050 mt = 43354 tons on 12/11/40

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Speed - Bismarck versus Scharnhorst/Gneisenau

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:31 am

Duncan,

I think we both agree that there were no noticeable changes of the ships equipment between November 12th and December 11th.
Bismarck reached Hamburg December 9th with 1833 cbm fuel oil and 423 cbm feed water.
Bismarck left Hamburg March 6th 1941 with 1454 cbm fuel oil and 507 cbm feedwater.
There is no report of any fuel oil transfer between these dates.

On Dezember 11th we have a document, which states:

Draft on Dezember 11th

Front port 8910 starboard 8910
Middle port 9350 starboard 8960
Rear port 9560 starboard 9365

~44500 t

On September 14th 1940 the KTB states:

2330 cbm fuel oil and 436 cbm feedwater

There is also a document of that day:

Draft on September 14th

Front port 9255 starboard 9255
Middle port 9330 starboard 9335
Rear port 9480 starboard 9480

~45000 t

Even with the information of the rough estimates made by Blohm and Voss it doesn’t make much sense to try to extrapolate the weight from fuel oil and feed water. We simply do not have enough informations about the other weights.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3087
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Speed - Bismarck versus Scharnhorst/Gneisenau

Post by Dave Saxton » Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:47 pm

I have access to some photos of Tirpitz during it's trails period. There is a great deal of fluctuation of the draught. At times its has virtually no boot topping left showing at all, while at other times most of the boot topping. During some of test shoots it is still lacking the after firecontrol rangfinders (both the surface and Flak, and the aft radar), but there's very little boot topping showing at all. It seems they manipulated the displacement and draught for the situation. I can't imagine them running consumption and speed trials riding high. What would be the point of that?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Speed - Bismarck versus Scharnhorst/Gneisenau

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:15 pm

according to this thread in the german forum-marinearchiv

http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/index. ... 419.0.html

Image
Harold
....
So weit mal der "Befund".
76 m sind also l /2, lambda demzufolge 152 m => 29.94 kn. Da unsere Schätzung ohne weiteres zwischen 73 und 78 m schwanken kann (achteres Maximum sehr unscharf!), liegt die "Bandbreite" von 29.3 bis 30.3 kn.-
....
Speed roughly 29,94kn; bandwidth 29,3 - 30,3kn
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Speed - Bismarck versus Scharnhorst/Gneisenau

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Sun Feb 07, 2010 8:14 pm

According Report
Chef Hauptamt Kriegsschiffbau Fuchs
K/K III A Nr. 231/41 g.Kdos. Vergleich zwischen "Richelieu" und "Bismarck"
page 3
Bismarck
Constr. Speed 28,0 kn
achieved Speed 30,6 kn
(where and when are unknown)
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Speed - Bismarck versus Scharnhorst/Gneisenau

Post by dunmunro » Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:51 am

Thorsten Wahl wrote:According Report
Chef Hauptamt Kriegsschiffbau Fuchs
K/K III A Nr. 231/41 g.Kdos. Vergleich zwischen "Richelieu" und "Bismarck"
page 3
Bismarck
Constr. Speed 28,0 kn
achieved Speed 30,6 kn
(where and when are unknown)
Again, the critical info is displacement. Richelieu, for example could achieve extreme speeds on trials; " during a brief builder's trials she achieved 32.6 knots with an overload of 178000 MHP and 31.9 knots with...157000HP at a displacement of 43500 tons." At 41244 tons she achieved 30.38 knots with 135300 SHP.(allied BBs, p140) Richelieu's full load displacement was about 48000 tons.

jwhitch
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:57 am

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by jwhitch » Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:42 am

Hello,

My father served on a U Boat as well as the Prinz Eugen and one thing he taught me was the German Navy closely guarded the performance of their vessels. As a steam engineer he was very familiar with the power plants of the capital ships. According to him the Bismarck was capable of 30 to 31 knots. The Prinz was capable of nearly 40 knots. I know there will be some out there who will say this is incorrect based on records but the records were deliberately misleading. An example the depth gauge on a U boat shows 100 as max depth. common sense would lead you to believe that's 100 meters but the crews of the U Boats were told there is a multiplier of 3 to it so that 100 meant 300 meters. They were so concerned about security that one time when my grand father met my dad when his U Boat was in port my grand father who had served on a U Boat in WW I was not allowed on board.

The best security you can have is if the only people who know the secret are the ones who's life depends on it staying secret.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7593
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by RF » Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:06 pm

These speeds are still of course based on hearsay, even though he served on Prinz Eugen. Did the cruiser actually manage 40 knots?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
foeth
Supporter
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by foeth » Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:12 pm

To claim that PE could do 40 knots makes this information quite anecdotal and unreliable. It's simply not realistic to make such a claim while mentioning that the records were deliberately misleading. At 40 knots, she'll generate waves longer than the ship itself which is prohibitively power-consuming for displacement ships. No large surface warships from WWII could obtain that speed regime.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by lwd » Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:37 pm

foeth wrote:To claim that PE could do 40 knots makes this information quite anecdotal and unreliable. It's simply not realistic to make such a claim while mentioning that the records were deliberately misleading. At 40 knots, she'll generate waves longer than the ship itself which is prohibitively power-consuming for displacement ships. No large surface warships from WWII could obtain that speed regime.
I've seen quotes suggesting some of the large French DDs could get up near that speed as could the Atlantas. Longer ships have a greater hull speed so I for one don't find it impossible. Now how much of an overload she would have to be running at to do so and how safe it would be is another question.

User avatar
foeth
Supporter
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by foeth » Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:56 pm

Most destroyers can go to much higher speed regimes than large surface warships. That is, if they have the proper hull shape. WWII cruisers and battleships do not have this hull shape and usually stick around Froude numbers (ship speed / sqrt(g*L_waterline) ) of around 0.3-0.33. Destroyers can go to 0.4-0.5 as they do are transom type ship with a flat afterbody. If you have a V-type afterbody, you won't attain these high speeds easily.

(As far as I can tell, the Atlanta's can clock around 33-34 kts)

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by marcelo_malara » Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:18 pm

Hi Foeth. Do you say that a destroyer can enter in planning regime?

User avatar
foeth
Supporter
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:19 am

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by foeth » Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:26 pm

That is correct, though not fully planing. When you go from Froude above 0.5, you are entering regions where dynamic lift is becoming important, going to semi-planing. From Froude 0.5 to 0.6., the resistance curve can even drop a little bit. You get full planing near Froude = 1. Using wiki data (yes yes, I know) for a Fletcher, you get a Froude of 0.55, so that matches nicely :D

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by marcelo_malara » Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:34 pm

It´s always good to hear your expert opinion. The planning hability depends just on the bottom shape? Extremely slender hulls, say a multihull sail boat, has the same Froude number limitations as bigger ships?

Post Reply