KGV + PoW

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:56 am

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:11 am
for their comparison of Richelieu and Bismarck.
Remember KM did not know the status in which Richelieu was. Richelieu was completed and finally declared fit for service only in Nov 1943, when she was >43.000 long tons standard and 47500 long tons full load. Thus she was practically the same std. displacement as TIrpitz. Jean Bart as completed was even heavier, at approx 44500 long tons.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:55 am

alecsandros wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:56 am
dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:11 am
for their comparison of Richelieu and Bismarck.
Remember KM did not know the status in which Richelieu was. Richelieu was completed and finally declared fit for service only in Nov 1943, when she was >43.000 long tons standard and 47500 long tons full load. Thus she was practically the same std. displacement as TIrpitz. Jean Bart as completed was even heavier, at approx 44500 long tons.
Richelieu had many additions by Nov 1943 including a huge increase in AA armament. She carried 7500 tonnes of fuel according to the KM study, plus reserve feedwater and diesel so her standard displacement was still under 40000 tons.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:12 am

alecsandros wrote:
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 ?
Empty ship =
no provisions
no crew
no ammo
no crew water
no boiler and machinery water
no lube oil
no aircraft

for Bismarck these items added up to 3728 tonnes (3670 tons). I would estimate them to be about 3300 tons on KGV/PoW

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:13 am

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:55 am

Richelieu had many additions by Nov 1943 including a huge increase in AA armament. She carried 7500 tonnes of fuel according to the KM study, plus reserve feedwater and diesel so her standard displacement was still under 40000 tons.
It seems you entered the lack of comprehension dubious gang ?

KM study had nothing to do with real Richelieu displacement as in service - as KM had no idea of the modifications required to get fer fir for service. 7500 tons of oil is of course another one of your ridiculous informations, as Richelieu carried 4500 tons , later reduced to 4100, of fuel oil for wartime service (see Jordan and Dumas 2005). Same Jordan and DUmas give >43000 tons displacement after her completion on the New York Navy Yard.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 am

alecsandros wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:13 am
dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:55 am

Richelieu had many additions by Nov 1943 including a huge increase in AA armament. She carried 7500 tonnes of fuel according to the KM study, plus reserve feedwater and diesel so her standard displacement was still under 40000 tons.
It seems you entered the lack of comprehension dubious gang ?

KM study had nothing to do with real Richelieu displacement as in service - as KM had no idea of the modifications required to get fer fir for service. 7500 tons of oil is of course another one of your ridiculous informations, as Richelieu carried 4500 tons , later reduced to 4100, of fuel oil for wartime service (see Jordan and Dumas 2005). Same Jordan and DUmas give >43000 tons displacement after her completion on the New York Navy Yard.
:whistle:

J&D state 5866 tonnes of fuel (p.99)

See G&D page 98 and 148(below). Richelieu fuel capacity was 6796 tons in Nov 1943 after her USA refit. Full load was 47721 tons and after removing fuel and reserve feed water and liquids we get ~40000 tons. Normal load is standard displacement plus ~3000 tons of fuel.
47,721 tons (48,500 mt) Full load-battle
42,875 tons (43,575 mt) Normal (approx. 1/2 fuel)
40,270 tons (40,928 mt) Design
The KM were able to inspect the plans for Richelieu, and the via German Armistice Commission were also able to inspect the ship itself.

So we have two independent sources for Richelieu showing a ~7000 ton fuel capacity. There is typically a slight variation in fuel capacity depending on fuel density and whether the capacity is tank capacity or 95% capacity to allow for expansion.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:58 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 am
Full load was 47721 tons and after removing fuel and reserve feed water and liquids we get ~40000 tons.
And what is the displacement of Tirpitz in 1943 after removing fuel and reserve feed water and liquids.... ?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 23, 2018 6:48 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:58 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 am
Full load was 47721 tons and after removing fuel and reserve feed water and liquids we get ~40000 tons.
And what is the displacement of Tirpitz in 1943 after removing fuel and reserve feed water and liquids.... ?
Removing fuel and reserve feed water = standard displacement!!!

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:31 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 6:48 pm
Removing fuel and reserve feed water = standard displacement!!!
So you compare one battleship with NO liquids inside with another battleship at STANDARD displacement ?

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:39 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 am

J&D state 5866 tonnes of fuel (p.99)
No, J/D give 5866 tonnes of fuel in PEACE TIME , and 4500 tonnes of fuel in wartime to maximize the effectiveness of the underwater protection system (pg 118).

Why haven't you presented this above ?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:42 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:31 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 6:48 pm
Removing fuel and reserve feed water = standard displacement!!!
So you compare one battleship with NO liquids inside with another battleship at STANDARD displacement ?
Standard Displacement:
1) The standard displacement of a warship was defined in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 as the displacement of the ship complete, fully manned, engined, and equipped ready for sea, including all armament and ammunition, equipment, outfit, provisions and fresh water for crew, miscellaneous stores and implements of every description that are intended to be carried in war, but without fuel or reserve feed water on board.
http://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:46 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 am

See G&D page 98 and 148(below). Richelieu fuel capacity was 6796 tons in Nov 1943 after her USA refit. Full load was 47721 tons and after removing fuel and reserve feed water and LIQUIDS we get ~40000 tons.
LIQUIDS.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:48 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 am
The KM were able to inspect the plans for Richelieu, and the via German Armistice Commission were also able to inspect the ship itself.
... To state that KM understood in March 1941 (date of the report) what tonnage additions will be done to Richelieu in 1943 (when she was finally declared fit for service) in New York must be a product of an overactive imagination.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:56 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:39 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 am

J&D state 5866 tonnes of fuel (p.99)
No, J/D give 5866 tonnes of fuel in PEACE TIME , and 4500 tonnes of fuel in wartime to maximize the effectiveness of the underwater protection system (pg 118).

Why haven't you presented this above ?
I know this is difficult for you to understand, but page 118 describes what the USN called "optimum battle displacement". This is where the fuel load, at time of battle produces the most desirable draft for combat. This is a theoretical concept as ships usually could not control the time of an engagement but if Richelieu, with 5900 tons of fuel, joined Hood at Scapa flow and then left with her to fight Bismarck on 24 May 1941 she would have burned enough fuel to be at roughly at 4500 tons remaining, and thus near optimum battle displacement.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:14 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:46 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 am

See G&D page 98 and 148(below). Richelieu fuel capacity was 6796 tons in Nov 1943 after her USA refit. Full load was 47721 tons and after removing fuel and reserve feed water and LIQUIDS we get ~40000 tons.
LIQUIDS.
Liquids such as these:
Propulsion fuel oil (0.852): (diesel) 527 tonnes
Lubricating oil (0.92): 275 tonnes
Aviation gasoline: 34 tonnes
http://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html

which in Bismarck added ~840 tonnes.

So to determine Richelieu's standard displacement in Nov 1943 we have to remove fuel, diesel, avgas, reserve feedwater and reserve lube oil. :think:

You seem desperate to prove that a ship designed to far exceed the treaty limits (by KM admission, at least by 7000 tonnes) isn't really bigger than ships that tried to meet the treaty limit. :dance:

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:23 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:48 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:45 am
The KM were able to inspect the plans for Richelieu, and the via German Armistice Commission were also able to inspect the ship itself.
... To state that KM understood in March 1941 (date of the report) what tonnage additions will be done to Richelieu in 1943 (when she was finally declared fit for service) in New York must be a product of an overactive imagination.
The KM estimated Richelieu's standard displacement as 46750 tons (47500 tonnes) and after her USA refit Richelieu's displacement was 47721 tons (48500 tonnes). So Richelieu was 1000 tonnes above the KM estimate.

I'm sorry this is so hard for you. :wink:

Post Reply