Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by RNfanDan »

Vic Dale wrote: The ship was now fully fighting fit so there was no urgent need of a dockyard. All options were open. Lutjens had broken out into the Atlantic, stripped the convoys of their battleship and heavy cruiser escorts and now his squadron could cause mayhem at will.
What squadron? He had already released Prinz Eugen from his company.

So what does Lütjens do? He heads toward the mainland coast...toward the enemy, toward the air cover of Biscay (whether to its northern portion or its southern--not many points of the compass apart, from as far west as he was). Doesn't seem like he was interested in convoys.... instead, he heads AWAY from the open Atlantic wastes and convoy routes. More importantly, he makes NO attempt to link-up with his former squadron companion, now safely south and west of his position. He didn't go west toward Newfoundland, where he would have gotten in the direct path of the shipping lanes. Not south, away from his pursuers.

The revelations you have "discovered" about the particulars of the ship's pirhouettes, changes of speed and course, finally to stop long enough to patch the bow and access the forward suction valves, all took place within a relatively small area of ocean.

LOOK AT THE WRECK COORDINATES. Where do we see the ship's position on the seafloor? If Lütjens intended to see his mission through, it is not unreasonable that he would have been far and away to the west and south of that point.

Despite the wild castabouts and reversals of course detailed in lengthy posts, I have no reason now to doubt that Bismarck may have taken the short-term paths you have surmised immediately after Suffolk's loss of contact; may have been left with sufficient fuel not to head inland, but when it comes right down to it, the wreck lies at a position that all but eliminates the possibility that Lütjens, ultimately, was trying to carry out his commerce raiding mission.

Thank you,

Dan
Image
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by wadinga »

RnfanDan and all,

This thread should be solely about the title subject.

A brief webcrawl brought up this from Det Norske Veritas
DNV documented that large fuel savings and emission reductions
were possible by optimal trim setting. The savings were between
1 and 18% for the different draft and speed combinations.
This is presumably for normal trim and speed conditions merchant vessels might experience, and as drag increases through the square law, speeds in the 22 to 24 knot range would surely see the higher values. Sailing around with Bismarck's bow down and props near the surface mode must surely be close to that 18% additional fuel burn, or possibly higher.

Despite groundless suggestions that Bismarck's trim problems were solved, the Baron says cutting away all the anchors and chains was suggested as late as the 25th. The wreck has no anchors or chains, but it is impossible to say if they were still in place at the time of the last battle.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by alecsandros »

Vic Dale wrote:No fuel was contaminated in the bow. The bow was flooded in the compartments above the trim tanks and structural damage was limited to the compartment through which the shell passed. Once the water was pumped out of the flooded compartment, the control valves for the trim tanks were accessible and the fuel was no longer isolated.
I'm sorry,
I ment the loss of fuel that occured after the battle with Prince of Wales... and that produced an oil slick which was clearly visible ?

Now that you mentioned it, I remember it wasn't coming from the bow, but from the holing of compartment IX....

However, a significant oil loss was recorded that day...

You should substract a good amount of oil from your calculation.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by RF »

Vic Dale wrote: With his options open and with plenty of fuel in his bunkers, Lutjens did not have a lot to worry about, except the usual of not getting caught by a hunting group. At 1842 on the 24th, Group West suggested that if detaching PG was successful an extended waiting period in a remote area was advisable for Bismarck. So even Group west did not think it necessary to go barreling hell for leather toward France at that time and that was the day before the holes were sealed.
This is what Lutjens should have done. However he and his staff believed that Bismarck was still being tracked by British radar and it was Group West who told him that the British had lost contact - just before a Catalina appeared and re-established contact.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Vic Dale wrote: It confirms that the ship was never short of fuel.
Vic, if you would ask me, I would say Bismarck should have not been short of fuel. Seemingly she was for any reason. According Bruno Zickelbein the heating oil was even cut with aviation fuel and turbine lubricants.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by Byron Angel »

wadinga wrote:RnfanDan and all,

This thread should be solely about the title subject.

A brief webcrawl brought up this from Det Norske Veritas
DNV documented that large fuel savings and emission reductions
were possible by optimal trim setting. The savings were between
1 and 18% for the different draft and speed combinations.
This is presumably for normal trim and speed conditions merchant vessels might experience, and as drag increases through the square law, speeds in the 22 to 24 knot range would surely see the higher values. Sailing around with Bismarck's bow down and props near the surface mode must surely be close to that 18% additional fuel burn, or possibly higher.

Despite groundless suggestions that Bismarck's trim problems were solved, the Baron says cutting away all the anchors and chains was suggested as late as the 25th. The wreck has no anchors or chains, but it is impossible to say if they were still in place at the time of the last battle.

All the best

wadinga


..... I think this explains it.

B
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by wadinga »

All,

Marine Propellers and Propulsion by J S Carlton on Google books has a graph on page 327 which suggests that a 20 knot container ship in 2.6m waves needs between 7 and 8.5 % more power depending on heading to maintain that speed compared with flat water. Even a 1.8m wave meant 4% extra power.
Bismarck’s trials and work up was done in the comparatively calm waters of the Baltic and consumption figures were generated then. Atlantic swells, especially with a waterlogged bow plunging into them would add weather-generated extra consumption to the poor trim figures mentioned earlier, requiring maybe more than 20% more power (and fuel consumption) for a given speed.

Byron, I truly value your support :D

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by Vic Dale »

A great many questions have been raised and I will try to deal with them as I go. If I miss anything perhaps someone will remind me.

According to the ship's drawings available to me, the shell which hit the port side below the armour belt struck a diesel tank, so there will have been no loss of furnace fuel (FFO). Since PG was ordered to steam in Bismarck's wake to control the slick, it is probable that it was diesel she was dealing with, which would emulsify in the sea water, as it passed through the screws. I doubt that FFO which would have become very thick on contact with the very cold water would break up and emulsify.

As for the holes in the bow, the Interrogation report revealed the following;

Oberleutnant (Ing.) Karl Ludwig Richter, second officer attached to the damage control centre, went forward to inspect the damage and took charge of repairs. The salvage pump room in Section XVII was flooded and so this pump could not be used. The salvage pumps in Section XVII were not very effective and only succeeded in pumping a little water from the three forward sections after the shell entry hole had been plugged and the exit hole had had a plate welded on to it from inside under water by a diver. All available portable salvage pumps were now carried forward and employed.

I think this deals with this matter adequately, so there should be no further doubts.

As for cutting the FFO with aviation spirit and Lub Oil, we have no actual time slot for this. I would suggest that this was done after the ship have been crippled by the torpedo. The aircraft could not be launched and rather than ditch the aviation fuel, which would be a useless fire hazard in the event of action, it was probably fed into the ship's FFO tanks so as not to waste it. It might also make unusable fuel usable. No bad thing as far as the chief engineer was concerned. A warship carries various types of oil for lubricating, some is for use in very cold climes and other much thicker oils in hotter climes. Having successfully broken out into the Atlantic, the oil set aside for use if the ship were to remain in the Arctic, would be valueless, so burning it would make sense. The steering mechanisms would require large quantities of lubricating oil, but as they were now under water, the oil would be better use in the furnaces. Again ditching the stuff would not be a good idea. Every drop which could be saved was oil which would not need to be embarked from a tanker, thus lessening time spent oiling when the time came. Also it would free up storage space, so really heavy load could be taken aboard, thus reducing the number of hazardous oiling rendezvous.

I am not certain if this would work, but cutting FFO or lub oil with aviation spirit, might make a serviceable diesel fuel. I recall from my own time at sea, that in the event of shortage of kerosene for the helicopter, filtered diesel would do just fine. Maybe the engineers aboard Bismarck knew a thing or two about how to do the reverse and make diesel, a quantityt of which had been lost due to the shell in the port side.

After separating from PG, Bismarck steamed through seas similar to those encountered on the outward journey, so no great adjustment to consumption need be made. It was only during the night of the 26th that a force nine Atlantic gale blew up and by that time Lutjens' options had been greatly reduced. There are no accounts of lighter ships in the home fleet having to reduce speed to avoid damage, it was mostly business as normal. The trim by the bow was reduced by pumping out after the collision mat have been secured and only set in again after the mat was torn. The bow was repaired during the afternoon of the next day, so any drag, which will not have been so very great anyway, due to the reduction in speed, will have been eliminated. The only times it would have had an effect would be during the forenoon of the 24th and the night and forenoon of the 25th.

The ship's headings and speeds were dictated after separating by the need to pout distance between PG and Bismarck who was being chased. When heading south, Lutjens reduced speed, forcing the British to zig zag in order to maintain speed. Bismarck herself also zig zagged during periods. After 0306, Lutjens adopted a heading which would put the maximum distance between her and PG and presumably hopefully draw the British away too. The air attack from Victorious meant a serious hazard to PG is she too was spotted.

With his ship fully operational,Lutjens definitely had a squadron. He had two heavy warship operating in the open Atlantic and although they were very far apart both were under the operational control of Lutjens. For safety reasons, PG was not going to announce her presence by WT asking for orders. Captain Brinkmann knew exactly what he had to do and it would be for Lutjens to issue orders if he had specific tasks for her to undertake. He could still do that at any time. He had not relinquished control of the cruiser, just sent her to oil and then to continue the operation.

Unless Bismarck could reduce to mid cruising speed (16knots) she would need to oil in four or five days, but with tankers waiting in prearranged areas two of whom were only about 12 to 24 hours a sailing away, there was clearly no urgency. The only consideration regarding fuel was the question of how to do with the enemy hard on Bismarck's tail and that question had been answered when contact with her was lost. On the heading she maintained, toward Lisbon the enemy was being stretched and would soon need to break off to oil. If for a minute we can forget the disastrous torpedo in the rudders, the prospects for continuing the operation were extremely good.

If I have missed anything I apologise and ask that I be reminded of anything I need to deal with.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Your drawings are wrong.

Cutting the heating oil was started on May 25th according Zickelbein.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by wadinga »

Hi Vic,

I'm touched you have singled me out amongst so many other detractors, some using abusive terms like "Troll!" And at least my remarks are apparently intelligent :dance:

Since this thread is about fuel here is another quote about the forward damage from the survivor's report
There was also a potential fuel shortage as forward fuel bunkers under Sections XX-XXII could no longer be used
There is no indication this situation was reversed.

With regard to trim we also have
There are some grounds for believing that some of the after compartments were flooded to restore trim, and also that some tons of fuel were pumped from Sections XVI-XIX to bunkers further aft. It was also stated that the port bower anchor cable was slipped. Trim was now partially restored, but "Bismarck's" speed was reduced to 28 knots.
I think this covers it adequately.

So the repair and pump out were so successful they dumped an anchor and chain.

The early version of the survivor's report on this website's archive section suggests repairs were tried twice in the bow section and failed twice.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by Byron Angel »

wadinga wrote:All,

Marine Propellers and Propulsion by J S Carlton on Google books has a graph on page 327 which suggests that a 20 knot container ship in 2.6m waves needs between 7 and 8.5 % more power depending on heading to maintain that speed compared with flat water. Even a 1.8m wave meant 4% extra power.
Bismarck’s trials and work up was done in the comparatively calm waters of the Baltic and consumption figures were generated then. Atlantic swells, especially with a waterlogged bow plunging into them would add weather-generated extra consumption to the poor trim figures mentioned earlier, requiring maybe more than 20% more power (and fuel consumption) for a given speed.

Byron, I truly value your support :D

All the best

wadinga

..... Even minor differences in trim can produce a great effect upon power required, hence fuel consumption (as would a list for that matter).

B
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by Vic Dale »

The clue to Bismarck's fuel consumption after the hit in the bow comes in the form of reduced speed. She was not going to butt into the sea and dig in at 27 knots as she might at higher speeds. This was the speed she used for most of the 24th. She also had a following sea and the wind was behind her too. She actually reduced speed for long periods in order to permit PG to get well ahead. Counter flooding was employed to correct the bow down condition, so there will have been very little in the way of excessive fuel consumption. The collision mat was in place by the afternoon and that is how it remained until the TB attack that night. After contact was broken the ship was allowed to slow so that permanent repairs could be made with welded plates. Even the British Admiralty concluded that permanent repairs will have been made.

The big problem with water in the bow, was not so much that it was causing the ship to go bow down, but because the weight would put undue strain on the ship's structures forward when she pitched with the swell. Pumping fuel to the after bunkers combined with counter flooding will have got the ship more or less back to rights within a few hours. This is basic damage control and Bismarck's design permitted some of the most effective measures.

PoW was hit below water and had flooding in her after sections, causing her Captain to reduce speed to 27 knots. Counter flooding and other damage control measures eventually righted the ship and she was able to steam at high speed after a few hours. Why should the relatively raw PoW be able to do this and the fully worked up Bismarck not be able to?

Where is the reference to Bismarck ditching her anchors and cables? IF - and I do not believe this was ever the case - if the anchors and cables were ditched, it will have been after the torpedo hit in the rudder, though there is to my knowledge no mention of this anywhere. I take no responsibility for anchors and cables falling out of the ship after she rolled over and sank. It was suggested to Captain Lindemann that losing the anchors would lighten the ship forward, but Lindemann said he would need them for when entering harbour.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by wadinga »

Vic and all,

It has been said
Even the British Admiralty concluded that permanent repairs will have been made.
and yet the document confirms nothing of the sort.
Oberleutnant (Ing.) Karl Ludwig Richter, second officer attached to the damage control centre, went forward to inspect the damage and took charge of repairs. The salvage pump room in Section XVII was flooded and so this pump could not be used. The salvage pumps in Section XVII were not very effective and only succeeded in pumping a little water from the three forward sections after the shell entry hole had been plugged and the exit hole had had a plate welded on to it from inside under water by a diver. All available portable salvage pumps were now carried forward and employed. A prisoner estimated that about 3,000 tons of water entered the ship when the above-mentioned three forward sections were flooded. There are some grounds for believing that some of the after compartments were flooded to restore trim, and also that some tons of fuel were pumped from Sections XVI-XIX to bunkers further aft. It was also stated that the port bower anchor cable was slipped. Trim was now partially restored, but "Bismarck's" speed was reduced to 28 knots. There was also a potential fuel shortage as forward fuel bunkers under Sections XX-XXII could no longer be used.)
It is surprising Vic quoted the first part within apparently seeing or comprehending the second part. It says the trim problem was partially resolved. It says a welded patch over one hole was applied, it makes no mention of success or the pumping out of the up to 3,000 tons of water. It does say the anchor cable was slipped.

The Baron says the "Marinebaurat (Naval Constructor) Heinrich Schluter suggested we jettison the forward anchors and anchor chains. His idea was to lighten the forward section so as to adjust the forward trim that we had had since the flooding that began during the battle off Iceland." This was on the afternoon of the 25th when a diver had entered the fully flooded compartment to open the bunker transfer valves

So Vic thinks this was an easy repair which was completed without even bothering to mention it, whereas the highly qualified Naval Constructor who was actually there assessed the chances of success so low it would be better to cut all the anchors off! :shock:

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

up to 3,000 tons of water
there is much lesser space in this area so 3000 tons is somwhat exaggerated.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
Vic Dale
Senior Member
Posts: 903
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

Post by Vic Dale »

With the technical expertise aboard the Fleet Flagship, failure to make permanent repairs to the holes in the bow would have been remarkable and would have demonstrated a catastrophic breakdown of Captain Lindemann's ship organisation. He had reported his ship ready for action in the open Atlantic and failure to make such repairs would show that she was not nearly ready. Had this been realised in Bismarck, Lutjens would have reported that fact to Group West and would then have directed his Fleet Engineers to complete the task which Lindemann's men had failed to accomplish. What does it take to weld a plate in place and strengthen with stock framing?

It might be useful to recall that one damage control team suggested taking a hangar door off and welding it to the side of the ship when the rudders failed. Clearly there was plenty of will to get the ship going when the need arose. It was only the state of the sea which prevented this being attempted apparently.

No anchors were jettisoned.

The consumption of fuel on the voyage out from Gotenhafen will have emptied sufficient bunkers to permit oil to be pumped aft to counterbalance the ship, so the bow down condition will not have lasted long. Therefore there would be no need to let anchors go. Had the weight of the 10 ton anchors and their cables had any value in redistributing weight, the anchors would have been moved aft and the cables themselves would have been broken into sections and moved aft also. Had the state of the sea been so bad that the anchors could not be moved, the cables were accessible from inside the ship and would have been moved aft. A 25m length of cable weighed about 3 tons. In case anyone doubts that such weights could be moved at sea, I and five of my men moved a pump weighing 7 tons from deep in the bottom of an engine room and got it to a workshop, without denting anything. Everyone had developed into excellent slingers.

An evolution such as moving an anchor and/or it's cables aft would have been noted among the crew, so clearly that did not happen. Letting go an anchor would have been noted too and would have been a great talking point, to say little or nothing about it's crushing effect on morale. Such an event would have become the turning point at which the operation became hopeless and many would have written and spoken of it down the years.

It is the fact that so little is made of so important a damage control measure, that it is fairly certain that it completed without mishap on the afternoon of the 25th.
Post Reply