KGV + PoW

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:34 am

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:32 am
and had no major modifications after completion under her post Bismarck refit.
KGV wasn't completed in Oct 1940.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:02 am

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:34 am
dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:32 am
and had no major modifications after completion under her post Bismarck refit.
KGV wasn't completed in Oct 1940.
Actually, the inclining date isn't given in G&D ( I assumed incorrectly that it stated Oct 1940 ) but KGV was completed on 11 Dec 1940 and ran trials after that. The inclining data shows that full load and inclining full load are the same. Inclining is normally done just prior to trials.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:55 am

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:02 am
Actually, the inclining date isn't given in G&D ( I assumed incorrectly that it stated Oct 1940 ) but KGV was completed on 11 Dec 1940 and ran trials after that. The inclining data shows that full load and inclining full load are the same. Inclining is normally done just prior to trials.
KGV had radar systems , aircraft and other equipment installed in Dec , Jan and Fev.
I remember G/D give datas for Oct 1940.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:14 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:55 am
dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:02 am
Actually, the inclining date isn't given in G&D ( I assumed incorrectly that it stated Oct 1940 ) but KGV was completed on 11 Dec 1940 and ran trials after that. The inclining data shows that full load and inclining full load are the same. Inclining is normally done just prior to trials.
KGV had radar systems , aircraft and other equipment installed in Dec , Jan and Fev.
I remember G/D give datas for Oct 1940.
No there's no date given for the inclining. KGV was at sea from 15 Jan to 11 Feb 1941. In Feb 1941 she exchanged her Walrus's for two Walrus's equipped with ASV radar. Sorry, but there's no way her standard displacement increased 1500 tons from her trials in Dec 1940 to May 1941. Type 284 and Type 279 radar were fitted prior to trials in Dec 1940.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:19 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:14 pm
No there's no date given for the inclining. KGV was at sea from 15 Jan to 11 Feb 1941. In Feb 1941 she exchanged her Walrus's for two Walrus's equipped with ASV radar. Sorry, but there's no way her standard displacement increased 1500 tons from her trials in Dec 1940 to May 1941. Type 284 and Type 279 radar were fitted prior to trials in Dec 1940.
My info is that the 38030tons displacement is given after her trials in Oct 1940, after which she was commissioned. The weight increase is debatable, but I think it was considerable until May 1941 (oct-nov-dec-jan-fev-mar-apr imply 7 months).

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:04 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:19 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:14 pm
No there's no date given for the inclining. KGV was at sea from 15 Jan to 11 Feb 1941. In Feb 1941 she exchanged her Walrus's for two Walrus's equipped with ASV radar. Sorry, but there's no way her standard displacement increased 1500 tons from her trials in Dec 1940 to May 1941. Type 284 and Type 279 radar were fitted prior to trials in Dec 1940.
My info is that the 38030tons displacement is given after her trials in Oct 1940, after which she was commissioned. The weight increase is debatable, but I think it was considerable until May 1941 (oct-nov-dec-jan-fev-mar-apr imply 7 months).
Perhaps you can provide a page number and reference for that?

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:27 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:04 pm

Perhaps you can provide a page number and reference for that?
V.E. Tarrant, KGV class battleships, 2000 edition. October 1940 = 38030 tons, and full load 42237 tons. Same source gives Prince of Wales in March 1941 at 43786 tons full load, more then 1600 tons heavier then KGV of Oct 1940.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:56 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:27 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:04 pm

Perhaps you can provide a page number and reference for that?
V.E. Tarrant, KGV class battleships, 2000 edition. October 1940 = 38030 tons, and full load 42237 tons. Same source gives Prince of Wales in March 1941 at 43786 tons full load, more then 1600 tons heavier then KGV of Oct 1940.
Tarrant doesn't give a date for KGV's inclining, but in any event PoW was probably modified while building, just as Tirpitz was.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:31 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:56 pm
Tarrant doesn't give a date for KGV's inclining, but in any event PoW was probably modified while building, just as Tirpitz was.
You understand that Prince of Wales was over 39000 tons standard in March 1941 ?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:15 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:31 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:56 pm
Tarrant doesn't give a date for KGV's inclining, but in any event PoW was probably modified while building, just as Tirpitz was.
You understand that Prince of Wales was over 39000 tons standard in March 1941 ?
Looking at :
http://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html

we can see some differences in above the calculation versus RN calculation as per G&D, For KGV diesel fuel has been included in the standard displacement, but excluded from Bismarck. Bismarck also has reserve fresh drinking/washing water excluded from standard displacement but all KGV's fresh drinking water has been included.

If we add the diesel to Bismarck's standard displacement it goes up to 44786 tons (45505 tonnes). Adding in the reserve fresh drinking/washing water Bismarck's standard displacement would exceed 45000 tons. Bismarck's reserve of lube oil, excluded from standard displacement is also much greater than KGV's.

Various sources including R&R state KGV's standard displacement at 36727 tons upon completion. Some of the variation between this figure and G&D's 38031 tons is undoubtedly due to differences in calculating the various liquids and provisions and which should be included in standard and which are for full load.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:20 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:15 pm
If we add the diesel to Bismarck's standard displacement it goes up to 44786 tons (45505 tonnes). Adding in the reserve fresh drinking/washing water Bismarck's standard displacement would exceed 45000 tons. Bismarck's reserve of lube oil, excluded from standard displacement is also much greater than KGV's.

Various sources including R&R state KGV's standard displacement at 36727 tons upon completion. Some of the variation between this figure and G&D's 38031 tons is undoubtedly due to differences in calculating the various liquids and provisions and which should be included in standard and which are for full load.
So you took the largest value for Bismarck's displacement (no date given), and the smallest value for KGV displacement (no date given), and want to base analysis on it ?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:39 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:20 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:15 pm
If we add the diesel to Bismarck's standard displacement it goes up to 44786 tons (45505 tonnes). Adding in the reserve fresh drinking/washing water Bismarck's standard displacement would exceed 45000 tons. Bismarck's reserve of lube oil, excluded from standard displacement is also much greater than KGV's.

Various sources including R&R state KGV's standard displacement at 36727 tons upon completion. Some of the variation between this figure and G&D's 38031 tons is undoubtedly due to differences in calculating the various liquids and provisions and which should be included in standard and which are for full load.
So you took the largest value for Bismarck's displacement (no date given), and the smallest value for KGV displacement (no date given), and want to base analysis on it ?
As I've explained, Mr Rico's data is based upon the latest research and probably represents the most accurate info currently available. Certainly the numbers that he provides are consistent with the KM's own numbers in their comparison with Richelieu.

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 versus 36600 tons for Washington (see Friedman's US Battleships, p. 278)

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:42 am

dunmunro wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:39 pm

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 versus 36600 tons for Washington (see Friedman's US Battleships, p. 278)
US battleships was published in 1985, same as Axis battleships by G/D.

You said G/D was obsolete as a reference for Bismarck's displacement, because it is old.

Now you use another book pulbished in the same year to support minimal displacement for King George Vth, despite the numbers published in more recent books.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:11 am

alecsandros wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:42 am
dunmunro wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:39 pm

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 versus 36600 tons for Washington (see Friedman's US Battleships, p. 278)
US battleships was published in 1985, same as Axis battleships by G/D.

You said G/D was obsolete as a reference for Bismarck's displacement, because it is old.

Now you use another book pulbished in the same year to support minimal displacement for King George Vth, despite the numbers published in more recent books.
I said there's been a lot of new data uncovered in the meantime such as the KM's comparison study of Bismarck and Richelieu. The effect of this data has been to revise Bismarck's standard displacement upward.

Looking at G&D's Axis Battleships, they provide some interesting data. On page 205 they state that KM design studies in 3 May 1935 estimated Bismarck's standard displacement as being 43900 tons (not tonnes) this was hoped to be revised downward. On page 206 they quote a memo from Adm Raeder dated 11 Feb 1937 where he states:
The construction office considers that no further increase should take place as long as we are obliged to the 35000 tons limit which we have already exceeded by 7000 tons so a further increase could hardly be concealed...
On page 208 they give a weight summary for Bismarck as of 16 Nov 1935 and 14 June 1936 for Tirpitz :
Bismarck / Tirpitz standard displacement
41673 tons / 42343 tons (not tonnes)

so the 41700 ton figure for Bismarck is a pre-construction estimate.

In their INRO article:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck.php
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.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:53 am

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:11 am

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 water and reserves for fuel and water. The total stock of fuel, water, with reserves for both, was over 10.000 long tons on Bismarck.

The empty ship in May 1941 weighed approx 40.000 long tons.

What was the empty ship displacement of KGV or Prince of Wales in May 1941 ?

Post Reply