Naval History Forums

VON DER TANN (and many other imperial navy vessels...) lack the range to operate like a Panzerschiff. VON DER TANN had a range of approx. 4400nm @14kts, the Panzerschiff DEUTSCHLAND´s range with Diesel engines was specified with 16,600nm @ 14kts, that is almost four times the range of the 15 years o...

Considering that the Weimarian Republic went into some deep modernization programs with the aviable and allowed by Versalles Pre-Dreadnought force in 1922 to 1927 period, it´s not fully inconvincing that some of the HSF ships may have been modernized. Most likely, however, WNT would have reduced the...

As far as I know, the TAYLOR bow is nothing unique to US fast BB's . The HIPPERs, the Twins and BISMARCK class -also DUNKERQUE and RICHELIEU- all had this feature to reduce drag and provide additional buoyoncy fwd. The BREMEN and EUROPA both had a bullbows bow with a very prominant shoulder. The hol...

The ten datapoints of USS NEW JERSEY´s 1943 trial results for 56,200 to 56,800ts displacement result in the following MMF model curve: 010000 SHP = 12.6kts (extrapolation) 016470 SHP = 15.3kts (primary data, trial) 016800 SHP = 15.5kts (primary data, trial) 020000 SHP = 16.4kts (interpolation) 03000...

Edit: What's wrong with Friedman's figure from "US Battleships"? New Jersey Dec 1943 , standardization trials: 31,9kts @ 221.000hp @ 56928 tons This shows 85% loaded New Jersey as being faster than the 10% loaded VV, and then the refited Richelieu... This isn´t from the standartization tr...

As a general point of interest. I prefer to use real data and not fix fudged attempts to account for differences in displacement. That beeing said, I see no reason to assume what You said is correct with the limited data at hand to draw my conclusions. And it's even more fuzzy when comparing it to d...

These are outdated data based upon theories and anecdotes in absence of primary sources, which have been classified during the wrote downs of Speed-Thrills I to IV. IOWA´s and NEW JERSEY´s trial data have been declassified in the meantime and thankfully submitted to a broad public by Mr. Steven Toby...

As typical when relying on Wiki sources, quoting what some authors think may happaned or not, this is wrong. First of all, SMS LÜTZOW most likely received a tropedohit earlier, hitting the foreship. This has been claimed by HMS FALMOUTH 18.25 discharging torpedoes from a distance of only 5500 yard a...

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/2968/iowaspeed5.jpg These are the MMF models for IOWA (from her trial in 1985 with modern and smoother underwaterpaint) and USS NEW JERSEY as of 1943. The problem is that any predictions past ca. 2400000SHP are increasingly overstating performance that´s because cav...

From the data above. RICHELIEU: ~41,800 to 43,500t (~25% to less than 50% load) BISMARCK: ~48,900 to 49,500t (68 to 75% load) So it´s a bit of an disadvantage for the latter but even using the right load on RICHELIEU, the vessel should be able to attain 32.5kts forced at 120% rated power, which is a...

addendum to data from above: The reported Displacement of RICHELIEU suggests that the trials were conducted at unusually light displacement, figuring roughly ~50% load for the 43,500t displacement figures and close to 25% load for the ~41,800 t displacement figures. The model tests for ~45,000t are ...

No, but here's the source: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=629&hilit=pump&start=30#p35007 Bismrack had about 16.000 tons/hour pumping capacity... Needs to be put in perspective, otherwise the figure alone is not representative for a qualitative approach trying to compare different battleships. For ...

Thanks Duncan. With these and Data taken from Dumas, th MMF model predicts for RICHELIEU are surprising: five aviable datapoints communicated by Duncan and taken from Dumas and three more model datapoints. RICHELIEU actual displacement for trials: 41,843 t (metr.) to 43,473 t (metr.) 010000SHP = 14....

What are the specific fuel consumption figures of the classes of ships under discussion? For BISMARCK I don´t know them but the data proposed so far look convincing. Nor do I know the specific required SHP to attain any given speed but the data from HerrNielsson from the other thread allow these int...

Sure that SCHMALENBACH is really mentioning ww1 28cm turrets and not those of the later Panzerschiffe? I aske specifically, because his work is sometimes not that clearly cut between pre-ww1, ww1 and post ww1 in questions of fire controll. Turret RF of 28cm turrets in ww1 were typically 3m devices (...