KGV + PoW

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:08 am

dunmunro wrote:
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:
That should read full load displacement.

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:07 am

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:23 pm
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.
The KM did not estimate Richelieu std. disp at 46750, but at 35160 tons, with intermediary iterations up to 38500 tons.

:shock:
Last edited by alecsandros on Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:12 am

dunmunro wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:08 am
That should read full load displacement.
46453 tons KM estimate versus 47548 tons full load actual displacement after her New York refit.

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:16 am

dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:14 pm
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:
You seem to lack basic arithmethic skills. A ship with a std. displacement of ~37800tons in June 1940 (uncompleted), with additions of unknown weight until July 1941 (AA guns, radar), and with additions of 3000tons in 1943 in the USA (as per Jordan and Dumas), plus additions of unknown weight in the UK, still ends up at 40.000 tons for you :wink:

EDIT: maybe the additions of unknown weight were of negative mass ?

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:57 am

alecsandros wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:16 am
dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:14 pm
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:
You seem to lack basic arithmethic skills. A ship with a std. displacement of ~37800tons in June 1940 (uncompleted), with additions of unknown weight until July 1941 (AA guns, radar), and with additions of 3000tons in 1943 in the USA (as per Jordan and Dumas), plus additions of unknown weight in the UK, still ends up at 40.000 tons for you :wink:
Richelieu's standard displacement increased by 3000 tonnes from 37250 tonnes (J&D page 99) to ~40250 tonnes (J&D p.186) and full load from 44698 tonnes (J&D p.99) to 48500 tons (47721 tons G&D p.98)

These numbers are all consistent with the KM study.

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:59 am

alecsandros wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:07 am
dunmunro wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:23 pm
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.
The KM did not estimate Richelieu std. disp at 46750, but at 35160 tons, with intermediary iterations up to 38500 tons.

:shock:
Perhaps you should have read my post of Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:08 am.

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:06 am

dunmunro wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:57 am
to ~40250 tonnes (J&D p.186)
J/D page 186 contains only the reference to 'her new 'normal' displacement of 43600 tonnes'.

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:23 am

alecsandros wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:06 am
dunmunro wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:57 am
to ~40250 tonnes (J&D p.186)
J/D page 186 contains only the reference to 'her new 'normal' displacement of 43600 tonnes'.
See my post of Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:45 pm for an explanation of "normal displacement" via a direct quote from G&D p.148.

This is what J&D stated on page 186:
In machinery trials conducted on 26 September
1943. Richelieu comfortably sustained 26.5 knots for
at hours at her new 'normal' displacement of 43,609
tonnes, followed by two hours at 28.9 knots and a fifty-
minute burst at 30.2 knots The previous day she had
attained a top speed of 31.5 knots for thirty minutes,
These were impressive figures given an increase of
almost 3000 tonnes in displacement
and a hull which
was found to be slightly bowed amidships - there was
a settling of the keel of around 10cm by comparison
with the bow and the stern, possibly as a result of the
torpedo damage sustained in July 1940.
The KM study, J&D and G&D are all consistent and but perhaps this is too hard for you to understand? It certainly seems so, so I'll have to leave you to it.

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:29 am

dunmunro wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:23 am

The KM study, J&D and G&D are all consistent and but perhaps this is too hard for you to understand? It certainly seems so, so I'll have to leave you to it.
You are mixing up tonnages because you don't know what you're doing.
You don't understand basic arithmetics , intetionally misquote , and 'forget' to mention crucial info :D

it seems you got realy into the forgery stuff... from other threads. Too bad, Duncan...

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:30 am

dunmunro wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:23 am
These were impressive figures given an increase of
almost 3000 tonnes in displacement
and a hull which
was found to be slightly bowed amidships -
The increase of 3000 tons comes from the New York Yard refit.
You forget again the values of weight added between June 1940 and July 1941, and in UK after Nov 1943...

Negative mass again ?

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by pgollin » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:24 pm

.

One problem is differentiating between the RN looking at the "standard displacement" of the KGV upon completion meaning the THEORETICAL displacement of the ship as designed and the "actual" standard displacement upon completion (found by inclining and adjusting for pluses/minuses for liquids/consumables).

The first was a matter for the DNC and lawyers just to see how the design actually came out (something like 36,300+ tons), whilst the second showed the navy what it was actually dealing with once all the additions had been included - much higher.

The RN had a real problem during WW2 with unknown weight gain. Every "A & A" could be assigned a weight and ships' nominal weights were adjusted accordingly, however almost every time a ship was inclined the weight was found to be higher.

As far as the KGV's were concerned there was no real problem (although speed/range was slightly affected, leading to the addition of fuel tanks in some of the compartments of the double bottom). However, near the end of the war Anson was inclined and was found to be so heavy that her then weight was determined to be set as a "not to be exceeded" weight for the whole class.

After the war IF the KGV's had been modified then there would have been a weight loss programme not only to off set new additions, but also to leave a margin for future growth.

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:39 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:30 am
dunmunro wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:23 am
These were impressive figures given an increase of
almost 3000 tonnes in displacement
and a hull which
was found to be slightly bowed amidships -
The increase of 3000 tons comes from the New York Yard refit.
You forget again the values of weight added between June 1940 and July 1941, and in UK after Nov 1943...

Negative mass again ?
To quote myself:
Richelieu's standard displacement increased by 3000 tonnes from 37250 tonnes (J&D page 99) to ~40250 tonnes (J&D p.186) and full load from 44698 tonnes (J&D p.99) to 48500 tons (47721 tons G&D p.98)

These numbers are all consistent with the KM study.

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:44 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:39 pm
To quote myself:
Quoting yourself doesn't explain the negative mass problem.
Perhaps the French engineers of 1941-1943 managed to find a way to put things on Richelieu that made her lighter. Maybe inflatable balloos filled with helium gas beneath decks ?
Same for British engineers of late-1943: they cluttered the ship with AAA guns and new radars, that in effect made the ship lighter.

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by dunmunro » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:11 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:44 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:39 pm
To quote myself:
Quoting yourself doesn't explain the negative mass problem.
Perhaps the French engineers of 1941-1943 managed to find a way to put things on Richelieu that made her lighter. Maybe inflatable balloos filled with helium gas beneath decks ?
Same for British engineers of late-1943: they cluttered the ship with AAA guns and new radars, that in effect made the ship lighter.
As usual, your posts are incomprehensible. Richelieu's displacement was measured in Nov 1943 and the displacement included all weight added to the ship at that point. OTOH, it also included all weight removed such as the original light AA outfit, the aircraft and catapult. Even after these weight reductions, it was found that Richelieu's standard displacement had increased from 37250 tonnes by ~3000 tonnes.

Similarly, in the UK Richelieu's light AA was augmented:
During her stay in the United Kingdom,
eleven single-mounted Bofors were added, increasing her 40-mm battery to
sixty-seven guns, and nine Oerlikon single-mount machine guns were removed, leaving
only forty-one 20-mm guns
(G&D)
but weight gain was mitigated by reductions in the 20mm outfit. Radars were also added but obsolete radars had been removed. Again, weight increased but probably by less than 60 tons.

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

Re: KGV + PoW

Post by alecsandros » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:13 am

dunmunro wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:11 pm
but weight gain was mitigated by reductions in the 20mm outfit. Radars were also added but obsolete radars had been removed. Again, weight increased but probably by less than 60 tons.
It is unknown how much weight was added on Richelieu on various stages.
What is known is full load in June 1940 and Oct 1943.

It is highly unlikely that Richelieu in late 1943 had the same std. displacement as Howe or Anson did at same date.

Post Reply