Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

[RNfanDan]

No anchors were jettisoned.

"25.5. Zur besseren Trimmlage wird Öl von vorn nach achtern gepumpt, zur Erleichterung des Vorschiffs werden ausserdem beide Buganker geschlippt.
25 May. In order to improve the trim attitude, oil was pumped from forward aft, to ease the weight in the bow sections, both bow anchors were slipped

FYI.

Dan

[Vic Dale]

No anchors were jettisoned.

"25.5. Zur besseren Trimmlage wird Öl von vorn nach achtern gepumpt, zur Erleichterung des Vorschiffs werden ausserdem beide Buganker geschlippt.
25 May. In order to improve the trim attitude, oil was pumped from forward aft, to ease the weight in the bow sections, both bow anchors were slipped

FYI.

Dan

What is the source?

The Baron Deals with The Naval Constructor's (Marinebaurat Heinrich Schluter) suggestion about jettisoning the ships forward anchors thus;

Jettisoning Anchors.jpg (46.37 KiB) Viewed 3616 times

[RNfanDan]

What is the source?

I had looked the topic up on a search engine and didn't pay much attention to the source, which is given in the thread linked below.

I revisited the web search "hit" again a few moments ago, and it turns out to be from an older and more specific thread, right here at K-Bismarck. Seems the Baron's bibliographic reference from his book makes no such mention of the incident, and it may have simply been his own opinion.

One doesn't require self-carried anchors to make port with a damaged ship, especially if tugs are available to assist in maneuvering. It seems likely there will have been moorings available, or alternately, arranging hawselines to either tie to bollards ashore or to mooring floats.

Anyway so that others can see the discussion in detail, here is the link:
http://kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=236

In any event, no clear solution had been reached re: did they or didn't they. Unless something has been found in the intervening years to "swing" the matter one way or the other, it remains hypothetical for both sides.

Hope this proves useful,

Dan

[Vic Dale]

That length of cable visible on the wreck entering the shell hole resolves this aspect of the discussion for me. If the anchors were to be let go, all of the cable would have run out with it.

Anchors are very important when entering harbour. If a squall blows up it may well be necessary to let go an anchor in order to prevent the ship grounding or colliding with the dockside, or another vessel. I have personally witnessed this when the wind caught our vessel and shoved her into the dockside. My own electrical store was located at the point of impact and as I had the keys, the DC Teams needed to get hold of me to gain access. No structural damage was incurred, just a bit of scratched paint. There was no time to let an anchor go on that occasion as we were just a few yards from the dock.

If you look closely at photos or film footage of warships leaving and entering harbour you will see among the fo'clse party the Chief Shipwright (Chippy) and the Chief Stoker. You may also see whisps of steam issuing from the triple expansion engines which powered the capstans and cable holders on some older vessels.

Each anchor cable will have been singled up to the "Blake Slip" the collar of which could be knocked off in an instant with a single blow from the Chippys sledge hammer, at a signal from the bridge.

[RNfanDan]

Thank you for the story of the "quayside slide".

HMS Liverpool made it to safe harbor with no anchors AND no bow. Same holds for the Hunt-class (Type 3) destroyer L74 Adrias. Peacetime, post-war policies and practices were the last thing any captain would resort to, when his ship's existence was at stake.

As to any certainty the anchors were not slipped, the chain falling down the shell hole to starboard of the capstans, can only have meant that it was anchor-free; the hole is far too small to have admitted either bower anchor.

In damaged condition and with the 14" shell hit exit hole still prominent (proven in Ballard's expedition photographs), Bismarck would have needed to have its bow lightened as much as possible. I've had his book for a number of years now, and IF the ship's damage control included welded plates, it was an exceptionally large area of plate to have been handled by divers, and the hull flare at that area of the bow meant that it would have required something other than a flat plate to even begin sealing the hole.

Something still should be left of it, in any case, but even if I am wrong, I doubt it was a singular plate, to begin with,if such a repair was made, and sealed as good as your theory requires.

I also know the steel would not have been of nearly the same thickness, as well as likely much weaker than the far stronger grade of hull plating the bow was constructed from. Those kinds of materials would likely not have been aboard, and I suspect whatever patching replaced the first temporary mats and cobble-work may well have been a combination of materials (plate, mats, sailcloth, caulking) rather than anything approaching yard-grade, rolled steel. Considering the sea-state at the time, if it was impossible for the ship to get men into the steering flat, it would have been little better conditions at the bow, the day before. Your breezy, theoretical 100% combat-ready assessment is probably a far cry from reality.

Cheers,

Dan

[Vic Dale]

To Dan.

The exit hole from PoW's hit is not visible. I did a detailed check on the location and it is buried behind that large lump of silt. The farthest aft that hole could possibly be is forward of the double bollards to port and starboard of the cable holders. I think I cleared this up on the "Holes in Bismarck's Bow" topic. Bill Jurens stated from his detailed study of the bow on both sides that the holes in the bow from that first action could not possibly be identified, so what was once so certain has receded into uncertainty.

If you are not convinced, I will bring up the research I did on the bow and you can look at it again - perhaps add something of your own.

Because ships did enter a port without anchors and without bows, does not in the slightest alter the fact that anchors are an essential part of ship safety, when entering or leaving. This would be particularly so as Lindemann, the ship's Captain, had never negotiated any of the French Ports in a big ship and the ship's command could never rule out the possibility of sabotage from French tugboat men. Grounding Hitler's greatest battleship would be considered a major accomplishment and many Frenchmen would happily give their lives to achieve such a thing. Letting go the anchors would be giving a huge hostage to fortune and only in the most desperate of circumstances would such a thing be done.

Letting go the anchors and keeping the cable aboard would lighten the ship by a mere 20 tons, when 500 fathoms of cable - 3000 feet would weigh more than a thousand tons. Two times this weight was equal to the water said to be in the bow and this is why the Naval Constructor suggested this rather crude and impractical measure.

Compared to it's weight, anchor cable is not very strong and must be handled with care. It can only be used a limited number of times before it must be replaced, so undue shock or stress will cause it to part at the weakest link.

The cable itself is passed around cable holders and they can temporarily hold the cable in check using a banded brake. This brake is not nearly strong enough to hold the cable even when the ship is lying at anchor in clam waters, so a riding slip is locked onto the cable where it exits the cable locker and enters the naval pipe, so as to hold it in place. When the anchor is stowed after weighing, the cable is gripped by the Screw Slip, which hauls the last few links aboard and fastens the anchor snugly against the Hawse. When the anchor is to be let go, the cable is fastened to the Blake Slip and the Screw Slip is unwound and taken off. Down deep in the cable locker the cable is secured by a heavy shackle and swivel piece which permits the cable to twist unhindered as it passes out of the ship at speed.

The wreck Of the Bismarck has no anchors, though I believe she probably went down with them in place. I would expect to see them on the bottom near the wreck at the point where the hull first struck. The shock of the bow hitting the sea bottom will, have forced the anchors down and forward parting the slips and causing the anchors and cables to pay out very rapidly. The movement stern first down the slope will have continued to draw the anchors and their respective cable out of the ship until the cable was snubbed by the shackle in the bottom of the cable locker. The cable will then have parted and it seems that the starboard anchor parted on the upper deck, as part of it can still be seen and the other cable parted inside the ship.

Conclusion; If the question of letting go the anchors had been seriously considered, the cable would have had to be let out of the ship gradually, then halted at the first Joining Shackle so the Screw slip and Blake slip could be applied either side of it with the Blake Slip farthest forward. The joining shackle would be parted and the screw slip undone and taken off. The Blake slip would be knocked off letting the anchor go. This evolution would have to continue until the last shackle of cable remained, because to pay out too much cable at once would place too great a strain on the banded brake in the cable holder and it would likely take charge under it's own weight and pay out very rapidly. This would be true in calm waters but with the bow continually pitching, the weights and strains would be many times that produce by a shackle of cable hanging static and it would easily take charge and run out. A thousand tons of cable or even 500 tons paying out unchecked could cause serious structural damage to the ship, when it finally came to the end. As one of my shipmates put it, when I asked him one day what would happen if something like that occurred, "The cable locker would probably wind up on the upper deck."

The cable would need to be paid out shackle by shackle and each shackle would require about 20 minutes to deal with, amounting to at least 10 hours of solid work. Then the ship's company would have had something to talk about, even if it could be done with so much green water coming in over the bow. We would certainly know about that and in every detail.

[RF]

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?

In the context of an open flat calm sea I can agree. However Bismarck was being chased and also liable to attack at any time by aircraft, not to mention the sea conditions.

Had Lutjens decided, on losing contact with the shadowing cruisers, to head for mid-Atlantic instead of France (I think that is what he should have done) then I would expect repairs to be effected.

On the subject of difficult repairs, there is also the instance of the hilfskreuzer Atlantis successfully replacing a keel plate at Kerguelen island, with very limited engineering resources and a lot further away from any outside help than Bismarck was.

[Vic Dale]

I have personal experience of carrying out difficult repairs in heavy seas. It is surprising what resource the individual can bring to a difficult situation. Just as in battle, morale is the major part governing success or failure. If you have the resources and the materials, there is no limit to what can be achieved or what the individual will undertake. I personally did things which these days make my hair stand on end. I did them because they were necessary and not without immense pride did I attempt to do things others could not, though once embarked upon a particular task, my enthusiasm often infected others. I rarely failed in anything I tried to do. I was told by a high ranking officer that that was leadership, to me it was simple competitiveness when facing a problem.

I do not consider myself special in any way. It was the navy which brought the best out in me and in others. Viewing the actions of men under my command, it always heartened me to see how they too would take the initiative and get the most difficult jobs done. We often worked under extremely dangerous conditions, but because we had the resources to do the job, the job always got done. I never caused or suffered serious injury, just the usual mechanic's cuts and bruises.

To some, it may seem like an impossible task holding a heavy plate in place ready for welding, so I will briefly outline how I would have gone about it, even though I am not a qualified welder.

The petalled steel of the shell plate (hull plate) where the shell has passed through would be cut out using a torch. The new plate would be cut to size and eye-bolts would be welded around the perimeter, in sufficient numbers to permit grip at any angle. I would have five, 5ton chain blocks (Western Purchases) ready near the location of the holes. When Pumping operations had completed, the plate and the chain blocks would be taken in and the operation of sealing the holes would begin.

Chisels would be used to remove all insulation and paint from around the hole. The plate would be hooked onto a chain block and lifted so it hung close to the hole, steadied by hand where possible, or by chain blocks where necessary. Other chain blocks as required would be used to steady the plate. When sufficient chain blocks had been used the plate would stop swinging to the motion of the ship. Eye bolts would be welded to the interior of the hull around the plate, so it could be roped into position, using wooden blocks and Spanish Windlass to tighten it up. The plate would then be tacked at points where it touched the bare steel of the hull, using one or two inch welds. Now the chain blocks can be take off and discarded. Spanish windlasses and wooden blocks would force the plate hard against the hull, or heavy wooden shoring would be used so there were no gaps. Once this was done a good welder would be brought in to permanently weld the plate in place. This operation could be performed in less than 2 hours, though it could take a bit longer if the sea was very rough.

Once the plate is secured, the ship may proceed at whatever speed the ship's command decides and framing can be gradually built up using stock angle bar, or girder, over coming hours or days as the case might be.

According to one survivor, the plates were not big enough to cover the hole. I personally find this hard to believe as it would be known in advance the sort of damage which would be incurred when shells hit the ship and stock plate of the correct size would be carried. So if the plates weren't big enough use two or three. Use enough initiative to get the job done.

In case anyone is wondering, a 1cm x 3.5m x 3.5m plate would weigh no more than or 140kg or 300lbs. I have moved motors weighing several tons at sea and with the ship rolling. You just have to use enough chain blocks to keep it safe. During the Battle of Northcape, Scharnhorst's men moved shells weighing 300kg through the ship in a force nine gale and at 32 knots. What can be done will be done, when there is sufficient need. I never had a chain block fail on me, because at all times the correct equipment was used weight for weight.

There will have been no excuse for not permanently sealing those holes in the bow - none that I would have accepted anyway. I expect Admiral Lutjens was probably a harder task master than I and had the job not been completed, his bellows of rage would still be echoing round the Atlantic. Certainly the Fleet Engineer would not have come through with his hearing intact.

[Guest]

Regarding plate weights, Mr. Dale wrote:

"In case anyone is wondering, a 1cm x 3.5m x 3.5m plate would weigh no more than or 140kg or 300lbs."

I'm wondering where I might get some of these? By my calcs, a 10mm x 3500mm x 3500mm (i.e. basically a .394" x 138"x138") steel plate should weigh something more like 2100 lbs, i.e. roughly 960kg.

Bill Jurens

[Bill Jurens]

(This is a near-duplicate of a previous post, which has apparently been delayed in being put up on this site. Perhaps it will be posted later; if not, there is no loss as contents are essentially identical.)

Regarding repairs, Mr. Dale wrote:

"In case anyone is wondering, a 1cm x 3.5m x 3.5m plate would weigh no more than or 140kg or 300lbs."

Where might I obtain some of this marvellous stuff? According to my calculations, a steel plate that size should weigh around 2100 lbs, not 300...

Bill Jurens

[Dave Saxton]

The plate would be hooked onto a chain block and lifted so it hung close to the hole, steadied by hand where possible, or by chain blocks where necessary. Other chain blocks as required would be used to steady the plate. When sufficient chain blocks had been used the plate would stop swinging to the motion of the ship. Eye bolts would be welded to the interior of the hull around the plate, so it could be roped into position, using wooden blocks and Spanish Windlass to tighten it up. The plate would then be tacked at points where it touched the bare steel of the hull, using one or two inch welds. Now the chain blocks can be take off and discarded. Spanish windlasses and wooden blocks would force the plate hard against the hull, or heavy wooden shoring would be used so there were no gaps. Once this was done a good welder would be brought in to permanently weld the plate in place. This operation could be performed in less than 2 hours, though it could take a bit longer if the sea was very rough.

.

I've been on the working end of heavy plates and chain falls, hydralic jacks, welding electrodes in hand... before (never aboard a ship at sea), and I can't begin to describe how impractical this would be under the historical cirmustances......

[Dave Saxton]

According to one survivor, the plates were not big enough to cover the hole.

He should know better than you or I. It would really be something if they had plates on hand that fit any given job. They were likely standard size mild steel sheets (Approx 3' x 8') and they would likely not be 1cm thick, but much thinner. The best that could be done in a practical sense would be ( (crude) as a replacement word) up job that would likely still ship some water, and let the dock yard handle it later.

[Vic Dale]

http://www.chapelsteel.com/weight-steel-plate.html

I used this calculator this morning and it looks like I put the decimal point in the wrong place. It doesn't make much difference to the actual job, because the weight is being carried by 5ton chain blocks. It might take a bit longer to keep everyone safe though.

As I said I am not a welder, but believe me I would have my working party get that plate in place, so a good welder would be able to permanently secure it. Historically the ship slowed so that the work could get underway and plates were cut to size in readiness, so somebody aboard Bismarck has to have had an idea that it could be done. Had it not been done, they would have heard about it at Group West in the clear, without WT.

Seamen are marvelous slingers. We did the job all the time at sea, so you get used to how the ship rolls and you pick your time to make a particular move. You learn to work together. If a civilian had gone to sea and tried to do the job we did, he would not have been capable of standing upright for much of the time if he didn't get violently sea sick. It is something you have to learn. Getting those plates from the engineers workshop to the bow would be a job in itself and would probably have been the most difficult part whilst the ship was making high speed. Getting it against the ship's side once all the crap had been cut or scraped away would be relatively easy.

I once had to take an engine room coaxial fan out for repair. The circular trunk was half an inch thick, 30 inches in diameter and 8 feet in height. That was a devil to move, but we did it and got the fan motor replaced and all up and running again inside 8 hours, working through the night. There were just four of us on that job. Had modern day safety at work people been aboard they would have had a fit, seeing what we got up to to get that and other jobs done. Had we not taken chances the ship would not have worked, would probably not have got away from the wall even, but that is the navy and you make it work any way you can.

[Vic Dale]

According to one survivor, the plates were not big enough to cover the hole.

He should know better than you or I. It would really be something if they had plates on hand that fit any given job. They were likely standard size mild steel sheets (Approx 3' x 8') and they would likely not be 1cm thick, but much thinner. The best that could be done in a practical sense would be ( (crude) as a replacement word) up job that would likely still ship some water, and let the dock yard handle it later.

I saw plates of that thickness in our engineers workshop and also in the Shipwright's Shop. If the plates are not big enough use two. Or take a door off and weld that in place. Take a torch and cut a plate out of an interior compartment. A structural Engineer was suggesting letting go the anchors - at what cost???

What would be the earthly point of carrying only plate which was no good for patching holes? Bismarck was a warship, which on an Atlantic operation risked being hit by heavy shells. A straight through and through pass would give a relatively predictable couple of holes to patch, after the petalling had been cut away. The plates themselves would have been cut in situ, so there should be no mistakes. If mistakes were made,they would have to be corrected and more plate would have to be used.

Just to illustrate the range of spares a warship carries, our electrical stores carried a spare armature and field coils for every electric motor in the ship. We carried spare starters and breakers and electric cable by the mile. We carried cable tray, Wave Guide for the radar and a damage control cable for every possible run in the ship, each was itemised for it's location, length, amperage and the points between which it would run.

Now translate that to the engineer's and the ship wright's stores. They will have carried spares for each and every possible eventuality based upon many years of continual sea experience and war. Is it likely that they would have carried only plate which could not be used to patch shell holes? What would be the point of carrying anything which did not fit the bill? I cannot begin to think of a purpose for a plate which had no practical use. The most important type of plate to carry, would be the plate best suited for maintaining watertight integrity.

The stock plates I remember seeing were four feet high and either five or six feet long and about 1cm thick, certainly the same thickness as shell plate.

As for the job itself. I have said how I would go about it, but there were men far better qualified as artificers and engineers who would know exactly how to do it and do it far better. If they could not muster the ability between them to get two holes patched with welded plate of suitable thickness, then there will have been something very wrong in Bismarck. Never mind criticism of Lutjens by Bismarck's survivors, it would be the lack-lustre engineers who let them down who got it in the neck.

Lutjens radioed Group West that the operation could not continue because he could not oil due to continual shadowing. He did not radio them to say that though contact had been broken he still had to break off because his engineers were crap and could not repair two holes in the bow.

[RNfanDan]

I saw plates of that thickness in our engineers workshop and also in the Shipwright's Shop. If the plates are not big enough use two. Or take a door off and weld that in place. Take a torch and cut a plate out of an interior compartment. A structural Engineer was suggesting letting go the anchors - at what cost???

A worthy question, especially in light of Bismarck's flooding and the need to secure the bow against incursion of seawater. Reduced speed, as well (temporarily at minimum). There's a hunt on for your collective arses, your ship is damaged, and the primary task is to raise the bow. Trimming by stern is only a partial solution, and causes further reduction in speed, loss of gM, and increased waterplane area. You need to move quickly.

Which takes longer--shedding the anchors and cabling, or getting into a flooded compartment with divers and large pieces of steel, openings for which I am sure did not exist in the bulkhead(s)? Anchors were of NO benefit to anything Bismarck needed at that time---they were useless at sea, and potential dead-weight at the time. All possible means of lightening the bow will have been considered. There can have been NO comparison with the Kriegsmarine war procedures and the Royal Navy of your day. The standards and procedures of even the RN were much different in WW2 than when you served.

Just to illustrate the range of spares a warship carries, our electrical stores carried a spare armature and field coils for every electric motor in the ship. We carried spare starters and breakers and electric cable by the mile. We carried cable tray, Wave Guide for the radar and a damage control cable for every possible run in the ship, each was itemised for it's location, length, amperage and the points between which it would run.

Racks and lockers full of pre-fab parts and spares for standardized, swappable components have NOTHING to do with repairing a metre-by-something-plus, irregular hull plating hole. Pure customization and a bit of jury-rig is needed. Those plates would have been hard work and very time-consuming to fabricate. Compromising the integrity of adjacent compartments by cutting bulkheads will have exposed dry areas to further flooding while the repair was being made.

My educated guess (having read something of this many years ago) is that some form of corrugated light steel was used, in conjunction with caulking and collision mats, secured by angle or C-channel stringers welded between frames. Heavy plates of comparable thickness to the original hull, particularly a flared hull and not a flat surface, manhandled by divers, while the ship was moving in a seaway---doesn't add up. Royal Navy or Kriegsmarine, damaged hulls were typically the job of YARDS and drydocking would almost certainly have been required, especially to the area on the side hit by Victorious' aerial torpedo, causing flooding of a machinery space.

Now translate that to the engineer's and the ship wright's stores. They will have carried spares for each and every possible eventuality based upon many years of continual sea experience and war.

There is NO direct translation.

What "many years of continual sea experience and war" do you mean? The Kriegsmarine was a far more "scratch" organization than most world navies, even years after its birth in 1933. The Kriegsmarine fielded an even more inexperienced Navy than Britain when war came, particularly in its surface fleet. Germany's navy had not been to war for more than two decades, and Germany had no real surface navy to speak of until after The Third Reich had been established. Their great Z-plan was utterly deflated when Hitler sent his troops across the Polish border in 1939.

Contrast this with the RN, which had a great deal of virtual war-conditions experience throughout the years 1936-1939 (Spanish Civil War, Abyssinian crisis, Palestine troubles, China Station, etc.). The tiny Kriegsmarine was not comparable in either its size nor its sea experience as the global Royal Navy had been, even in its deteriorated state by August 1939.

Lutjens radioed Group West that the operation could not continue because he could not oil due to continual shadowing.

Continual shadowing. The perception of which, in itself, contradicts the idea of "permanent repairs" and 100% battle-worthiness being regained. It would surely contradict the nature of Lütjens' run away from the British---it seems apparent that he considered the British were still following him, and to have stopped his ship or even slowed it sufficiently to allow such hull repairs at sea, will have been a far riskier idea than dumping his bower anchors! In your own words: "...at what cost???"

Which begs another question: Where, in your well-studied timeline and grid-square placements, does Bismarck STOP at sea, to effect these repairs? I'd like to see a study of such an interruption in Bismarck's forward progress--it must surely show up in the calculations of the clearly known number of hours and minutes between Suffolk's loss of contact, and the PBY sighting west of Brest.

Many things don't add up. I'm afraid the calculus presented thus far does not provide the solution.

Let's have another look at these issues: Lütjens' ship is damaged. It leaks oil, which eventually stops. Its bow is down by a few degrees. He is pursued after the DS battle, with a sizeable hole admitting the sea to his ship's forward compartments. His speed is reduced. He needs to effect repairs. He dismisses his sidekick, Brinkmann, at a known "beginning" time; from then on, the British lose contact until the PBY regains it, at the "end" of that time. Lütjens doesn't KNOW that he has shaken the RN, however. So If his ship was repaired, then when and, more importantly, where?