Re: KGV + PoW
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:34 am
Warships, naval battles, technology, weapons, navies of all eras, modeling, etc.
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/
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.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.
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 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:55 amKGV had radar systems , aircraft and other equipment installed in Dec , Jan and Fev.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.
I remember G/D give datas for Oct 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 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.
Perhaps you can provide a page number and reference for that?alecsandros wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:19 pmMy 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 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.
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 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:27 pmV.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.
Looking at :alecsandros wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:31 pmYou understand that Prince of Wales was over 39000 tons standard in March 1941 ?
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 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.
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.alecsandros wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:20 pmSo 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 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.
US battleships was published in 1985, same as Axis battleships by G/D.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)
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.alecsandros wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:42 amUS battleships was published in 1985, same as Axis battleships by G/D.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)
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.
On page 208 they give a weight summary for Bismarck as of 16 Nov 1935 and 14 June 1936 for Tirpitz :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...
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.