Bismarck and Titanic

[Karl Heidenreich]

Hi:

I know there is little points of comparison but...

I just buyed the 1:350 Minicraft model of RMS Titanic in order to enlarge my 1:350 collection, and the first thing I did was to compare the liner´s hull with Bismarck´s (and Hood´s, KGV´s, Missouri´s, etc.) and found how BIG she was. She was longer and higher than Bismarck whose hull was only 15 meters high.
So I began to compare both specifications and found some interesting things.

Bismarck´s displacement was:
41,700 tons standard
50,900 tons full

Titanic:
24,900 tons standard
46,328 tons full

How can it be that a 1912 liner with 268 meters in lenght and 54 meters height built with rivets could weight only 25K tons while a 1941 Bismarck was twice her displacement even with advanced welding technics?
Also Bismarck´s difference between standard and full displacement was of just 9,200 tons (22% of her standard displacement) while Titanic´s was of 21,428 tons (86% !!!!). It´s almost twice her own displacement. What´s that due for: the coal?

Titanic´s hull was imense with a high silohuete while Bismarck´s was shallow with a very low profile except for her conning tower, funnel and mainmast. It´s almost as if Titanic was an empty eggshell while Bismarck was almost solid.
All these raise my curiosity about the topic.

Any criteria on this?

[marcelo_malara]

Hi Karl:

I was looking at your numbers. First of all, the definition of standard displacement was introduced in the Washington Naval conference, so it was not in use in the Titanic era. But the number of 24900, whatever it is, seems to low for a ship of that size. Where did you get it?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Hi Marcelo:

It appears everywhere: in the Titanic website and in the specs. about the ship in the Minicraft model.

Best regards.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Marcelo:

Hi Karl:

I was looking at your numbers. First of all, the definition of standard displacement was introduced in the Washington Naval conference, so it was not in use in the Titanic era. But the number of 24900, whatever it is, seems to low for a ship of that size. Where did you get it?

OK: My confussion. Gross Tonnage: 46,328 tons and Net Tonnage: 24,900 tons. No displacement. Anyway the difference still is HUGE.

[marcelo_malara]

The data I found is:

Tonnage (gross): 46.328 tons
Tonnage (net): 21.831 tons
Displacement at design draught: 52.310 tons
Hull weight: 24900 tons

If you take the displacement doesn´t differed much from Bismarck´s.

[Gary]

Hi Guys.

I suspect it was not so much the hull itself but rather what was put in and around the hull that made the difference.
I know that Titanic had elbarote, expensive furnishings for its insanely rich passengers but I doubt any marble floor or billiard room even came close to the weight of Bismarcks "elborate, expensive furnishings"

Some of Bismarcks "furnishings" included a 320mm (12.5 inch) armour belt and a 110mm (4.3 inch) slope behind that.
Then she had 4 huge 15 inch turrets that each weighed over 1000 tons each

Deck armour, conning tower etc etc

[Bill Jurens]

It is quite easy to get confused with displacements, as they are often defined in unusual ways, both in merchant ships and warships.

If one takes the product of Titanic's length, beam, and draft, one gets the displacement of an equivalent prism in cubic feet. Dividing this by 35 gives displacement in tons. Multiplying the result by c. 0.684, which was Titanic's block coefficient, gives a displacement in the vicinity of 53, 200 tons.

Bill Jurens.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bill Jurens:

It is quite easy to get confused with displacements, as they are often defined in unusual ways, both in merchant ships and warships.

If one takes the product of Titanic's length, beam, and draft, one gets the displacement of an equivalent prism in cubic feet. Dividing this by 35 gives displacement in tons. Multiplying the result by c. 0.684, which was Titanic's block coefficient, gives a displacement in the vicinity of 53, 200 tons.

Bill Jurens.

Thanks a lot Bill! It´s an honour to have a reply from you to this or any subject. Thanks!

[Karl Heidenreich]

Ok. Let´s do it:

Lenght: 882 feet
Beam: 92,5 feet
Draft: 59,5 feet

Volume: 882 x 92,5 x 59,5 = 4,854,307.5 cubic feet

Displacement = 138,694.5 x 0,684 = 94,867.04 tons

I fell like an imbecile, it´s Bill´s twice as much, more or less CVN Enterprise.

[mike1880]

Draft 59,5 feet?

[Karl Heidenreich]

There was misunderstanding with the draft. In the webpage thinkquest the draft is stated as 59,5 feet. In another one the draft (keyflux) the draft stated is: 34 feet.


Being 34 feet instead of 59,5 then:

Vol: 2,773,890 cubic feet

Displacement: 54,209.74 tons



Okay. Then her displacement was bigger than Bismarck´s.

Best regards!