Bismarck range

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Bismarck range

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
Re the speeds of the various ships mentioned, surely whether a ship reaches 29.6 or 29.8 or even 30 knots is pretty irrelevant in practical terms. In battle, it seems to me that a ship going at say 30 knots has little advantage over one doing 28 or 29 knots. I know we have discussed the Pow -Bismarck battle at length many times and it is not surprising that Lutyens decided against what would have been a very long 'stern chase'
Also, if these speeds were achieved in trials when new and not after a year or so at sea,, then surely they would have been undertaken in reasonably calm weather and not in an Atlantic gale where such a speed would risk damage to the ship?
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Bismarck range

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

marcelo_malara wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:39 pm We have already discussed this before. Bismarck´s machinery was not efficient, her consumption was 325 grams/hp/hour, whereas for example Massachusetts´ was 305.
The problem with all german naval powerplants was the high holiday load. Only steam on for readiness to drive and turbines making 0 revolutions the fuel consumption was in the order of 8-9 t fuel oil per hour.

At higher RPM the fuel consumption per [kn] was comparable with Iowa class based on fuel oil with same heating value.

german ranges were calculated based on extra low calorific fuel oil (worst case oil).
Bismarcks Range in extra economical driving was 12560 sm at 13 sm/h according Fahrtabellen based on 7700 m³ fuel oil with 8650 kcal/l.

Reasons for the high holiday load
based on Indienstestellungsprotokoll Blücher, Kriegserfahrungen mit dem Schlachschifftyp Bismarck (Krux),
each boilerrrom had more then thirty auxillary machines all were driven with steam. It should be possible to replace them with electrical drives.

In addition electrical installations reduce the number and complexity of steam pipes causing trouble.
Last edited by Thorsten Wahl on Fri Sep 24, 2021 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: Bismarck range

Post by marcelo_malara »

Thanks! So it would be difficult to compare pure propulsion consumption? Do we have any other gm/hp/hr data?

Regards
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Bismarck range

Post by HMSVF »

paul.mercer wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:58 am Gentlemen,
Re the speeds of the various ships mentioned, surely whether a ship reaches 29.6 or 29.8 or even 30 knots is pretty irrelevant in practical terms. In battle, it seems to me that a ship going at say 30 knots has little advantage over one doing 28 or 29 knots. I know we have discussed the Pow -Bismarck battle at length many times and it is not surprising that Lutyens decided against what would have been a very long 'stern chase'
Also, if these speeds were achieved in trials when new and not after a year or so at sea,, then surely they would have been undertaken in reasonably calm weather and not in an Atlantic gale where such a speed would risk damage to the ship?
Doesn't hull form/seaworthiness etc etc play a role? Its one thing to be tearing across the Baltic or off the Scottish Coast but different in a force 9 gale. If it wasn't an issue then Bey would have had his destroyers with him at the Battle of The North Cape...

I believe that even the depth of water during a trial run made a difference? So many variables.



In terms of long stern chases a knot or two was enough for HMS Indomitable and Indefatigable to be left behind behind by the Goeben - though Goeben had the advantage of not being fired upon!


I'm always amused a little in regards speed arguments, as a lot of the time it comes down to "your 22 knots isn't as good as my 22 knots" and what a person is trying to prove. In some cases 21 knots is deemed to slow, but then acceptable depending on the nature of the debate.

In terms of the Bismarck from what the learned posters on here have said... She had good range. The problem was that it wasn't enough when she lost a percentage of her fuel stock to battle damage.

Questions around bunkerage/redundancy and battle resistance is probably another debate in itself.
RobertsonN
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:47 am

Re: Bismarck range

Post by RobertsonN »

The usual figures quoted for range at a limited cruising speed were probably most appropriate for peacetime. In wartime oil fuel was often regarded as part of the torpedo defence system. This system was most effective over a fairly limited range of fuel carried, something like with tanks between 70 and 85% full. Higher than this the force of a torpedo explosion might be transmitted directly to the torpedo bulkhead. Lower than this some fragments might be thrown through the system little slowed down by travelling through oil. In wartime there was also a possible need to refuel escorting destroyers from the battleship's bunkers.

Malcolm Muir in his book on the Iowa class gives some figures for Missouri in May/June 1945. Over 14 days she steamed 6014 nm at an average speed of 17.9 knots with a maximum of 27 knots. During this time she refuelled three times from tankers, taking on over 33000 barrels of oil, while supplying nearly 13000 barrels to 17 destroyers. Similarly, Wisconsin steamed 25706 nm from 17 March to 10 May 1945, also at an average of 17.9 knots. She refuelled with 166000 barrels from 13 oilers and gave 48000 barrels to 41 destroyers. During this time she had 4 boilers on for 553 hours, 6 for 164 hours, 7 for 64 hours and all 8 for 601 hours.

so, both Missouri and Wisconsin were over extended periods refuelling on average about every 2000 nm,

Neil Robertson
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Bismarck range

Post by paul.mercer »

HMSVF wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:54 pm
paul.mercer wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:58 am Gentlemen,
Re the speeds of the various ships mentioned, surely whether a ship reaches 29.6 or 29.8 or even 30 knots is pretty irrelevant in practical terms. In battle, it seems to me that a ship going at say 30 knots has little advantage over one doing 28 or 29 knots. I know we have discussed the Pow -Bismarck battle at length many times and it is not surprising that Lutyens decided against what would have been a very long 'stern chase'
Also, if these speeds were achieved in trials when new and not after a year or so at sea,, then surely they would have been undertaken in reasonably calm weather and not in an Atlantic gale where such a speed would risk damage to the ship?
Doesn't hull form/seaworthiness etc etc play a role? Its one thing to be tearing across the Baltic or off the Scottish Coast but different in a force 9 gale. If it wasn't an issue then Bey would have had his destroyers with him at the Battle of The North Cape...

I believe that even the depth of water during a trial run made a difference? So many variables.



In terms of long stern chases a knot or two was enough for HMS Indomitable and Indefatigable to be left behind behind by the Goeben - though Goeben had the advantage of not being fired upon!


I'm always amused a little in regards speed arguments, as a lot of the time it comes down to "your 22 knots isn't as good as my 22 knots" and what a person is trying to prove. In some cases 21 knots is deemed to slow, but then acceptable depending on the nature of the debate.

In terms of the Bismarck from what the learned posters on here have said... She had good range. The problem was that it wasn't enough when she lost a percentage of her fuel stock to battle damage.

Questions around bunkerage/redundancy and battle resistance is probably another debate in itself.
Thanks HMSVF,
Re Goeben and Indomitable and Indefatigable, I suppose that when one is fleeing for ones life and being chased by two battle cruisers there is an incentive to try and squeeze a little extra speed out of the ship!
What I really meant was that if we have two ships determined to fight it out I really don't understand why a 30 knot ship would have that much advantage over a 28 knot one. After all, had Bismarck reduced to say 20 knots and able to maneuver instead of being crippled she would still have been a very dangerous opponent, even though the eventual outcome would probably have been the same.
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck range

Post by Bill Jurens »

For what it's worth, the U.S.N. in extensive inter-war tactical maneuvering exercises at sea and on the gaming board, concluded that any speed difference under about five knots was of little-to-no significant tactical advantage. This may be one reason why they tended, when new battleships were built, to 'step-up' speed in approximately five knot increments.

Bill Jurens
TTTT
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:02 pm

Re: Bismarck range

Post by TTTT »

One to two knots speed advantage probably only matters when you are trying to get away or closing the distance - and not not in a gunfight. A lone raider like Bismarck would probably not have been sent on the mission at all if she had been a 28+ knot ship and Britain's new KGVs had been 30+knot ships. If the Germans had been aware of Hood's poor condition, would the battle of Denmark Strait happened at all?
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Bismarck range

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi TTTT,
I would refer you to Bill Jurens post immediately before yours regarding speed, I'm sure Germany must have known about the building of the KGV class ships and were confident that even if Bismarck gave away a couple of knots she would be able to take one on with a reasonable expectation of success. As for Hood, I believe she had some degree of modernization including armour between the wars and have no doubt German spies reported it, but in reality I suppose she was still an up-armoured (if there is such a word!) battlecruiser and the RN knew it, which is why she was sent out together with a full blown battleship.
As regards your question "would the battle of Denmark strait have taken place", If Lutjens has any choice in the matter the answer is a firm 'NO', his instructions were to go for convoys and avoid combat with enemy heavy ships if at all possible.
if you look back at some of the posts over the last couple of years you will see that the subject of whether pursuing PoW was a viable proposition or doing what Lutyens decided has been hotly debated!
Joe100
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:01 am

Re: Bismarck range

Post by Joe100 »

As an interesting aside, reading the notes between Raeder and his subs on the subject of the power plants for Schlachtschiffs F and G are very interesting. The hand-wringing over turbo-electric, diesels, or HP steam is fascinating in my opinion. It does seem the KM had a hard time squaring the roles of F and G and their operational theater if war came before 1945, in the end deciding to go with HP steam even though in the end they may have realized their mistake. Diesels were still troublesome but they were confident they could iron them out in the end. The diesels would have certainly answered the question of range .
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck range

Post by RF »

TTTT wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 11:03 am One to two knots speed advantage probably only matters when you are trying to get away or closing the distance - and not not in a gunfight. A lone raider like Bismarck would probably not have been sent on the mission at all if she had been a 28+ knot ship and Britain's new KGVs had been 30+knot ships. If the Germans had been aware of Hood's poor condition, would the battle of Denmark Strait happened at all?
I'm not clear on the reasoning for the last sentence here. If I commanded Bismarck and knew Hood's poor condition I would be licking my lips as soon as Hood appeared, no hesitation in opening fire and quite possibly opening fire two minutes or ninety seconds earlier could have made the difference between POW landing its three damaging hits (assuming Hood blew up within Bismarck's first five salvos) and yes I certainly would have gone after POW as well.....

But there again I'm not Lutjens nor am I constrained by ''no risks'' operational orders......
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
TTTT
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:02 pm

Re: Bismarck range

Post by TTTT »

I'm not thinking of Hood being in general poor condition, but to her speed. My understanding is that Hood could only do some 28-29 knots in May 1941, but Lutjens chose to fight because he didn't think he could outrun Hood? If he had known this he probably would have avoided the fight?
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Bismarck range

Post by Steve Crandell »

TTTT wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:29 pm I'm not thinking of Hood being in general poor condition, but to her speed. My understanding is that Hood could only do some 28-29 knots in May 1941, but Lutjens chose to fight because he didn't think he could outrun Hood? If he had known this he probably would have avoided the fight?
Not without running into the ice, I don't think.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck range

Post by dunmunro »

TTTT wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:29 pm I'm not thinking of Hood being in general poor condition, but to her speed. My understanding is that Hood could only do some 28-29 knots in May 1941, but Lutjens chose to fight because he didn't think he could outrun Hood? If he had known this he probably would have avoided the fight?
In late March 1941, Hood ran full load, full power trials at 28.8 knots, with paravanes streamed for an estimated .7 knot loss of speed. We know that Holland was pushing Hood and PoW above 29 knots prior to intercepting Bismarck. We've discussed Prinz Eugen's approaching critical fuel state and the need for her to find a tanker ASAP.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck range

Post by RF »

Steve Crandell wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:18 pm
TTTT wrote: Mon Nov 29, 2021 4:29 pm I'm not thinking of Hood being in general poor condition, but to her speed. My understanding is that Hood could only do some 28-29 knots in May 1941, but Lutjens chose to fight because he didn't think he could outrun Hood? If he had known this he probably would have avoided the fight?
Not without running into the ice, I don't think.
Lutjens hesitation in ordering the open fire I think was based on the idea of shaking off Hood, but couldn't turn to starboard because of the Greenland ice field - so his hand was forced and squandered the opportunity of firing first.
In another thread some years ago I have posed the question of what would have happened if the Fleet Commander had been Marschall instead of Lutjens, however pursuing this here I think is going off topic.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply