Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
Gudbrandur
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:08 pm
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland

Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby Gudbrandur » Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:52 am

Good morning all,
I´m back again. It is known that She had 2knots over her R N fastest ship. The story goes that She was out there for a month to be. It is known that She had full tanks mínus the 200 tonns. She had 3 turbine engines, 138.000.- WPS to take her up to 29 Kn. Do you know how big the fueltanks where altogether and has anyone calculated the burnoff fuel for 29 Kn per hour, per day.?

Thanks for now, Gudbrandur
Gudbrandur Jónsson

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby Herr Nilsson » Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:34 pm

Gudbrandur wrote:It is known that She had 2knots over her R N fastest ship.
That's highly questionable.



7,700 cbm ( to be exact 7,705.6 cbm)
at 29 kn and 0.97 mt/cbm and 10000 kcal/l and ~130,000 shp:
~44.5 mt/h
~7 days probably less
Regards

Marc

User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby tommy303 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:41 pm

Normally full speed on maximum wartime overload or flank speed is only used for emergencies, tactical deployment, and perhaps pursuit or when trying to get away. One would normally not want to run for very long at such a high speed as it entails more fuel burn, wear on the power plants, etc. High speeds also make using optical instruments more difficult because of vibrations. It becomes something like the tortoise vs the hare--you might gain a lead on your opponent, but if you use up all your fuel foolishly (like the hare who does not pace himself), even the tortoise will eventually overtake you.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby Herr Nilsson » Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:34 pm

That's true, of course, nevertheless there are even figures for Tirpitz' range at 30.8 kn. I agree that Bismarck would not run more than about 28.4 kn for any length of time.
Regards

Marc

Gudbrandur
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:08 pm
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby Gudbrandur » Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:10 pm

I still think that the Bismarck story is not over yet.
From Hr. Nilsson information on the fuel flow and max range at max speed we have Her at 7 day´s endurance. She was down in 10 day´s. The mission is 1. To be sailed form Germany via Norway to France or Spain, economy max speed, something like a 10 day mission, but to be out there for 30 day´s, no way. 2. To be used in a special mission, yes. I have information indicating that the Krigsmarine U-Boat division had the Bismarck for there disposial of operation and that the U Boat division had contracted the Abwehr and The Brandenburgers for a special attack on the airfield of Selfoss on the south of Iceland. She asked for a Fernaufklarung of what was a head when north of Iceland at day 4 and a Ju-88 was sent from the 1. Staffel (F) Fernaufklarungsgruppe 124 out of Stavanger. Then Hell broke loose.

I ask you now if you know the lost list of the Bismarck and if the Brandenburgers where on board the two ships and if we can find out if so, who where crew members and who where Brandenburgers. I want to tell you the story concerning this Krigsmarine operation starting in february 1941 with tw0 KG 26 aircraft to Selfoss and with the 3rd one down in mars the 19th in a forced landing and you will not belive what happend. More later.

Can you help me out with the Bismarck crew list, the lost and the living. Anyone, please.

Thank you,

p.s. I was in Frankfurth over the weekend.
Gudbrandur Jónsson

User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby tommy303 » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:51 am

Crew list:

http://www.kbismarck.com/crew/crewlist.html

Bismarck's operational orders are well documented and included provision for refueling at sea once the ship had successfully broken out into the Atlantic. A number of supply ships had been assigned for that purpose.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

Gudbrandur
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:08 pm
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby Gudbrandur » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:45 am

Thank you Tommy,

When you have POW from the Krigsmarine, U-Boats translating german war material, I have second thoughts of it´s truthfulnes. This you will find in the book, " The Luftwaffe and the War at Sea 1939-45." I have a UBoat journal and a ship journal, where 4 Germans left the Icelandic ship over to the Uboat. You can just guess what was written in the Logs of both ships. It was this book(LWS) that helped me solve the escape story of the 4 Germans out of Iceland from mars 19th 1941, that He 111 down in Iceland was in operation for the UBoats but came from KG26 and flown by ex Marineflieger. The UBoat Log or the copy I got was typed, can you see Uboat captains use a typwriter at sea. I have asked around for the original book/Log to see the truth and I am waiting to see the original. The book (LWS) gives an indication of a total split between Rader and Dönitz and between the Krigsmarine and the Luftwaffe with special authority given to Karl Dönitz by OKW. Rader disassociated himself from the Bismark operation, attemt one and two, but Karl Dönitz did not. He was in command of the Bismarck mission in the spring of 1941 and the aborted one. So, the Bismarck story is not over yet...

Gudbrandur
Gudbrandur Jónsson

Gudbrandur
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:08 pm
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby Gudbrandur » Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:23 pm

The fuel burn of Bismarck as indicated her at ca 44.4 tonns per hour at 29 kn gives a new perspectiv into the operation intended. From the shores of Norway to a position east of Greenland and north of Iceland to the point where the Hood went down is close to 2210 km in around 3 days. In order to meet that she has to do 29 kn to 31 kn and in so doing the supercharger is on all the time and she will use close to 3.960 tonns of fuel in only 3 days. That is more than half the bunker capacity and she is now in the middle of the Atlandic on a 90 day commerce rading mission. Why was Bismarck speeding and using up most of her fuel in the process.?? I wonder.? Burn off is 44.4 per hour at 29 kn and 54.4 at 31 kn.

Gudbrandur
Gudbrandur Jónsson

User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby tommy303 » Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:44 pm

At least until Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were actually spotted by Suffolk, the average speed of advance from Norway to the northern entrance to the Denmark Straits was 24 knots with occasional brief spells of 27 knots according to the Prinz Eugen's and the reconstructed Bismarck KTBs. The reason for the relatively high speeds was due to the necessity of keeping up with the fast moving weather system the squadron was using to cover their breakout into the Atlantic. A higher average speed would have been even more desirable and might have forestalled reaching the Greenland icepack in clearing conditions, but the high fuel consumption of the Prinz Eugen and her lesser range prevented any faster dash to the straits. The fleet meteorologist urged Luetjens to increase speed, but the suggestion was reluctantly rejected lest Prinz Eugen reach the Atlantic critically short of fuel.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby paul.mercer » Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:51 pm

Gentlemen,
With the discussions on fuel usage appearing to say that Bismarck may have used more fuel than she intended I wonder what her chances of getting back to Germany were, even if she had not had to fight in the Denmark Strait and had a clear run?
I realise that had she got out she would have caused havoc amongst the convoys, probably forcing every one to be escorted by a heavy battleship, but even an old 'R' or 'QE' had the potential to cause a crippling hit (even if they were sunk afterwards) so, given that the RN would put out every available ship to hunt her down what do the experts reckon on her chances of a safe return?

User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby tommy303 » Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:34 am

Her mission was to break out into the Atlantic and strike at the convoy routes. While on the high seas Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were expected to be supported by a network of oilers and supply ships to extend their time at sea in much the same way as Schrarnhorst and Gneisenau had been on their Atlantic raid. Heading back to Germany was not in the plan, and once the ships had accomplished their mission, they were expected to put into one of the Biscay ports and conduct future sorties from there.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby RF » Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:46 am

Heading back to Germany wouldn't be in the plan, neither necessarily would the Biscay ports be an automatic choice for the end of the three months as the twins there were already under sustained RAF bombing attack - I would have thought the ports of northern Norway would be the safest refuge, as Tirpitz demonstrated during 1942.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby paul.mercer » Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:07 pm

Even if she was not expected to return to Germany, what were her chances of survival against everthing the RN could throw at her?

Gudbrandur
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:08 pm
Location: Reykjavik, Iceland

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby Gudbrandur » Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:46 pm

Bismarck ran out of fuel prior to attacks on her from the Brittish, this is obvious. A battleship wihout her engines is a dead duck. RF is right, she left Bergen, Norway and was bound for Bergen, Norway. She was at her edge of radius og action when the Hood tragedy took place. She had used 55% of her fuel at a fast speed for her mission, "Reinubung". But there was no plan B. Hood was not to be in the way. The Reinubung was intended as a blitzkrig mission. When I came across the book ," The Luftwaffe and the War at Sea 1939-45, I did not belive what was written in it. The content of the book is a war secret until 2005 when David C Isby discovered it. You will not belive this. An american officer went into a Krigsmarine POW camp asking if some one could understand and write english. The first arm up was that of one ," Grossadmiral Karl Donitz" and the rest of them where, Kontreadmiral Gerhard Wagner, Vizadmiral Eberhard Weichold, Kapitan zur See Hans-Jurgen Reinecke, Korvetten Kapitan Otto Mejer, Kapitanleutnant Hans-Diedrich Freiherr von Tiesenhausen and from the Luftwaffe came General der Flieger Ulrich O.E.Kessler. All these men where contracted to translate confiscated war material from german over to english from the Krigsmarine and Luftwaffe. It was from this book I discoverd that the Bismarck was under the command of one Karl Dönitz and the U-Boat operation and Fliegerfurher Atlandic was the air arm of that operation. But the operation had a seacret aufklarung unit prior to sending the Bismarck out to sea. This unit was under the control of the Abwher using the Luftwaffe unit KG 26 Stab for the task. The transfer of the Bismarck from Rader over to Karl Dönitz took place in january 1941. The first Reinubung order was given in marz 19th 1941 after two Abwhere He 111 missions in february over to Iceland but the third one was on this strange day mars 19th- 1941 but the aircraft made a forced landig at Reykjanes Iceland and the operation was salted while the crew was running around Iceland. The second order was given at may 19th 1941. The reasion for Bismarck beeing in Bergen Norway was to pick up over 200 Brandenburgers commandos based over there since the Norway invation. The Reinubung was a Brandenburg mission to hit on the British airfield at Kaldadarnes at the river Ölfusá. From this airfield the Brithish where attacking U-Boats South of Iceland and protecting the ship corridor from Iceland over to the Fero Islands and Scotland. This was the target of Reinubung and the Brandenburgers. The true new Bismarck story is now ready.

Gudbrandur.
Gudbrandur Jónsson

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Postby RF » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:47 am

paul.mercer wrote:Even if she was not expected to return to Germany, what were her chances of survival against everthing the RN could throw at her?


Do what Krancke in the Scheer did, and what Lutjens did during Operation Berlin - disappear into the wide reaches of the ocean, succour from supply ships while the RN forces have to return to base when they run low on fuel.
That is how the lone raider works.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 2 guests