Bismarck Speed

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky »

I still think that not refueling in Norway could have had something to do with Lütjens' considerations about speed. Bismarck could not keep up with Prinz Eugen even at full power and needed the lighter load. Just a guess :think:
Ulrich
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Hello everybody,

I support the idea that Bismarckwas the most powerfull BB in operation in early 1941. Probably more powerfull than the 16" BBs that the USA and British had operational for that same time. And the most modern also. Nowadays, as the polls suggest she is also the most famous. Almost everybody in the western world knows, more or less, what Bismarck was... and, which is more important, what she did and what was done to her.
And this is where it lies the problem, I believe. Many people regard this fame or "myth" (as many, myself included, called it) as not worthy for a ship that, later, was superseded by others. Which others? Well, the Yamato Class in the first instance, the Iowa Class and the South Dak and North Carolina classes. Richelieu? I have my doubts but that ship may be considered as a heavy contender for Bismarck (remember that all the others are 16" plus BBs).
But no other BB has aroused such debate, such admiration (I don´t believe that any other BB had the model kit versions Bismarck has, or the number of books, or documentaries, etc.) as Bismarck. And this fame came from four things:
1. She was sunk in her maiden voyage. As Titanic.
2. In her first engagement she blew HMS Hood with what seems some ease. And was in capacity to score a double play that same morning.
3. Her enemies, specially Winston Churchill, made her larger than life when ordering everything the Brits had to her hunt.
4. The way in which she was sunk or... scuttled.
This is unquestionable, out of discussion because is a fact that cannot be undone easily.
There are some issues with her gunnery, her armour, her propellers, her rudders, the FuMo, the Arados, powerplant, etc. This arguments are supported by also unquestionable (?) data and, from some time now, with Nathan Okun´s evaluation of the vessel´s armour, evaluation that has become Gospel to many. Are these arguments right? Likely but must be put in a proper context. Is like saying that Queen Mary was bigger and faster than Lusitania. Context is the issue here.
In this particular thread I support the idea that Bismarck was capable to achieve (and did achieve) a speed of 30 knots. But is this relevant? This make Bismarck a better ship than KGV or not? Is not the issue. The combination of factors are those that put one ship above others in the BB scale. Not being capable of reaching the 30 knots mark make Bismarck a not so powerfull and "good" ship as others? Not likely neither. When you put Bismarck against a Nelson, a KGV, a Hood, a Queen Elizabeth, a Littorio or a Pennsylvannia what´s the big deal if she can reach 28, 29 or 30 knots?
What would have been the result of a duel of the Bismarck against Richelieu? It´s more than hypothetical. I put my money on Bismarck on this one knowing we have more or less a 50-50 chance to hit the jackpot. But the 30 knot top speed would not likely have something to do with the outcome. Having Lutjens on board or not would be more issue here than the armour or the torpedo bulkheads.
But, as seen, no argument at all would convince some people of this, and these unending threads about such items would never end.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky »

Probably more powerfull than the 16" BBs that the USA and British had operational for that same time.
The fact remains that the initial British gunfire injured the Bismarck so severely, to the point of making her a lame duck, and the fight had to brought to her, since she was unable to pursue the enemy.
Ulrich
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Dave Saxton »

It's hard to say what Bismarck's displacement was going into the Denmark St. battle. Although Bismarck probably didn't leave with 100% of it's full "special supplimental" fuel load, the Baron mentions that the Bismarck was not far from being totally topped off, when a fueling hose broke.

It was common practice to replace fuel oil with water in most bunkers, particularly those in the wing tanks and double bottom. This was also the practice on Bismarck, as most bunkers had to be mucked out prior to topping off. This was probably not the practice in all bunkers. We know that the forward bunkers were still mostly full of fuel, as the bow hit, and the resultant flooding, cut off access to the fuel in the forward bunkers.

I'd venture to guess that Bismarck's displacement was around 48-49k at Denmark St.

No matter how you slice it, or what weight is used as the base point; at the time of the speed run it comes out to around 48k as well.
User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky »

Dave Saxton wrote: the Baron mentions that the Bismarck was not far from being totally topped off, when a fueling hose broke
I hate to be totally blasphemous, but the Baron may not be a totally reliable authority on everything concerning the "Bismarck". Nevertheless, that is all we have from a surviving officer; that alone is a mystery to me: why did no other officers survive?
Ulrich
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Dave Saxton »

I agree that the Baron may not be totally reliable. Nobody is. It's a human thing. Even primary documents and data, can and do, contain errors. We must do the best we can with what's available.

I also agree with your assesement, that the failure to top off Bismarck at Bergen was a mistake. I don't know why Lutjens made this decision though? The fog of war I guess.

It just worked out that way, that Von Mullenheim was the only surviving officer. I guess that's up to the Man upstairs..... Von Mullenheim was a fairly good representive for the ship, and his fallen comrades, over the years, IMO.
User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky »

José M. Rico wrote: By the way, the fact that only one official record exists (or has been found), doesn't mean that the speed trial carried out on 29 October 1940 was the only one. The first measured mile runs (Meilenfahrten) were done on 23 October and during the first 2 weeks of November a few more took place.
PS: In the 29 October test the draft changed before and after the run from 8.5 to 8.0 m at the bow and from 8.8 to 9.0 at the stern. I don't know what that could influence.

Here is the protocol that was probably in use 1920-40:

“Kriegsschiffbau”: Ein Lehr- und Hilfsbuch für die Kriegsmarine Heinrich Evers, Springer Verlag, Berlin 1943, (Zweite, verbesserte Auflage).

[The Construction of Warships: a textbook and source book for the Kriegsmarine, Heinrich Evers, Springer Verlag, Berlin 1943, (Second, improved edition)]

454. Test runs. Warships are tested for speed and performance using “Meilenfahrten”, runs over a measured mile course. The measured mile course is staked out at Neukrug near Pillau. The track is marked by buoys, and perpendicular to the course are pairs of range poles installed on land at exact 2 mile intervals for on-deck leading line bearings. The total length of the measured course is 6 nautical miles. Water depth is 65 m. Warships are generally submitted to the following test runs:
a) Preliminary tests at sea to determine if the mechanical operation passes and to allow the engine room crew some rehearsal time. Subsequent to the preliminary tests, the engine output is increased up to maximum performance.
b) The “Übergabefahrt” [pre-commissioning, delivery run?], under certain conditions this can be in connection with the preliminary tests or a six-hour forced run, is a run of at least 8 hours duration, the last 2 hours at construction [designed] output.
c) Measured mile runs for the determination of optimal screw efficiency are made starting in sequence with the construction [designed] output, then from the lowest and greatest screw output.
In the older cruisers these runs for various incremental screw outputs were performed at flank speed, 27.5, 25.5, 22, 18 and 14.5 knots.
d) Measured mile runs using the established, most advantageous screw output, in the case mentioned above, at flank speed, 27.5, 25.5, 22, 20, 17, 14, and 9 knots, are done to determine the machinery capacity output and to make accurate measurements on the mechanical equipment.
e) Measured mile runs are made with a single [isolated] machinery group, e.g., with the low pressure main turbines only.
f) Measured mile runs with the turbines of just one side of the ship at the highest attainable maximum speed.
g) Six-hour forced run with a predetermined minimum speed, which is 27.5 kn in the example.
h) 24-hour fuel consumption run (for the cruiser that have been mentioned, 25.5 kn).
i) 24-hour fuel consumption run at moderate speed (in the example, 18 kn).
k) 48-hour fuel consumption run (in the example 18 kn).
l) Determination of the maximum performance and speed during one quarter-hour run in reverse.
m) Engine maneuvers.
During the performance of these runs, the following [regulations] shall be observed:

All measured mile runs (c….f) shall be conducted at Neukrug, the six-hour forced run and fuel consumption measurement runs shall be performed at water depth greater than 50 m, for the latter 25 m water depth may be permissible. Runs are (except for the measured mile runs) to be made along straight courses of at least 20 nautical miles [per leg] and unavoidable turns shall not exceed 20º rudder.

Test runs, in general, shall only be made below Force 4. Measured mile runs can be conducted in winds of Force 5, if the wind comes from the direction of the land and if the required rudder position does not induce an influence on overall speed.

All runs are to be made with a clean bottom.

During the forced fuel consumption, turning radius and in all measured mile runs, the average of the drafts before and after the run shall be the construction [designed] draft.

During measured mile runs, the mile must be traversed each time in both directions at constant rpm’s and with the least amount of rudder application. The ship’s speed is measured with stopwatches by two independent observers. The [engine] output will be continuously monitored on the torsion [torque?] indicators.

The wind’s force and direction, current and sea state will be determined; the current speed will be measured at various water depths down to the bottom of the ship.

455. Turning radius measurements.
Ulrich
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Dave Saxton »

The immersion factor for the Bismarck class in warm sea water was 57.30 tons for 1 cm.

If we apply this factor to the weights calculated by Jose for the date of the 3/4 power run, over the standard displacement, (comes to 48,686), the average immersion comes out to 8.49 meters. If we calculate the load addition of ~75% over the construction displacement ( comes to 48,950), the average immersion comes out to 8.54 meters. That's pretty close. Coincidence?

The incongruity with published specs for draught can probably be explained by the need to have a safe specification to go by, when the ships operated on inland water ways, and in canals. In cold fresh water, the immersion factor would be different, with a specific density 3 or 4 % less, depending on tempature, plus I would think they would factor in a slight safety margin.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by RF »

Ulrich Rudofsky wrote:I hate to be totally blasphemous, but the Baron may not be a totally reliable authority on everything concerning the "Bismarck". Nevertheless, that is all we have from a surviving officer; that alone is a mystery to me: why did no other officers survive?
There were actually four officer survivors, including one senior engineer.
Is there anything unusual about the officer/men survivor ratio here, otherwise what was the point in your post?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky »

RF: I made that post so long ago that I can't remember why I made it.

However, it is a fact that everyone relies on the Baron as the authority on the Bismarck. It iw well known that he had to rely mainly on his memory and only British sources were available to him at the time of his original publication in German. Hencce, some minor translation problems, and perhaps some interpretation British data, were carried from the English to the German text and then back in the translation of the German text into English. One funny one is the translation of "enemy has EM-2/Feind hat EM-2". The English source of the Bismarck war diary says: "Enemy has two radars"; the Baron in his German text repeats this same phrase in German, and Sweetman's translation says "Enemy has two radars" in the retranslation also. My hunch is that the Baron relied heavily on British sources and references for his book, since the German archives were not in operation then.
Ulrich
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by RF »

I understand from Ballard's book that Kapitan Lindemann recorded Bismarck's maximum speed as achieved on the Baltic trials as 30.8 knots.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky »

Josef Kaiser in "Schlachtschiff Bismarck: das Original im Detail, Simon Frey Verlag, 2004, says that the Blohm and Voss certificate for the speed trial stated 30.1 kn. I saw the certificate he is refering to. The figure was extrapolated, not an actual measure over the bottom. In his years of research Mr. Kaiser found no primary source documentation for achieved speeds of 30.4, 30.6 or 30.8 which are stated in the secondary literature.
Ulrich
Laurenz
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:57 am
Location: mainz germany

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Laurenz »

Bismarck was fueled in some tanks astern with water to keep the balance and max. Speed was reduced to 28 knots,

simply enough that the royal navy could not catch her with battleships and enough speed to catch PoW :-)

Some guys here miss the reality, please watch always the results. Results
are the only reality.

All my sources mentioned B&V high speed with 30,1 knots.
And during the trials at the baltic sea max. Speed was recorded with 30.8 knots. But nobody recorded that 30.8 knots were reached with full power of the mashinery.
Bismarck might have reached much higher speeds than 30.8 knots :-)
Are there some reports about Tirpitz?
Tirpitz was larger, longer and had a 900 tonnes higher fuel capacity.
kind regards,
L.
User avatar
Ulrich Rudofsky
Contributor & Translator
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:16 pm
Location: State of New York

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Ulrich Rudofsky »

from the start Bismarck could not make her designed speed and could not keep up wth Prinz Eugen at 30 kn of RPMs. The only way Bismarck could make the expected speed was to reduce her weight, and not taking on fuel in Norway may have been the solution. I am just guessing..........................but there was a message between PG and BS: Your 30 knots are not like mine........... Bismarck never had a real speed test nor a real gunnery test.
Ulrich
Laurenz
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:57 am
Location: mainz germany

Re: Bismarck Speed

Post by Laurenz »

Prinz Eugen's max.Speed was clearly above 32 knots, not so bad for a heavy cruiser.
So do you think, it is easy (for the bridge of Prinz Eugen) to consider the speed of 30 knots while manouvering?
Kind regards,
L.
Post Reply