Bismark´s endurance, fuel bunker and fuel burn.

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:38 pm

What is being written here is not at all based on anything to do with shipboard life and work. I have seen these things done for myself. I have watched plates being welded into place, I have seen internal structures changed, by the hands of just a few men. I have seen whole areas of deck cut out using a torch, a huge diesel generator lifted out and the plates welded back into place in a single forenoon. Then the process reversed in about the same time a few days later. I have witnessed ships being built in Portsmouth dockyard even and seen just how long it takes to weld up a sheet of shell plate, once it is lifted into place

There is no way those holes were not sealed with welded plates. It would not be a remarkable feat for men of the sea, certainly not for my generation of seamen and we were nothing special.

The plates do not need to be butt joined to the shell plate, they just need to be welded over with a lap-joint. Any areas which the plate could not cover, cut a new piece and weld that into the gap.

It has just occurred to me that we carried splinter boxes as standard equipment. The boxes were made from mild steel and had rubber edges. When a shell came through, the DC teams would fit the box over the hole and shore it into place with timber. The largest boxes were about a meter square, though I am sure I saw one which was about four feet in length and three feet across. These boxes were secured in their own rack along the internal bulkheads, with the rubber facing outward so it could be inspected and treated with a special preservative solution we used on resilient mounts

Do not try and tell me that a large warship does not carry the equipment and materials to make her own permanent repairs to battle damage at sea and in bad weather. They did and we knew exactly how to use it.

When the navy goes into battle everything is prepared for in advance. The idea that a shell hole could not be foreseen is fiction. That is precisely what we were trained to deal with. During work-up we had to find ways round shell holes on a daily basis. The work up team would go round with lumps of chalk and draw a hole in the deck or the bulkhead and say, You, You and You are dead and that is a shell hole, Fix it!" OK battle damage is not created with chalk, but that should give some idea of just how much and how often we were exercised to repair shell damage. Even after work up the ship continually exercised action stations and made preparations to repair battle damage. An example of how much we exercised this is when one guy organised his own piece of chalk and draw planks across it, saying he could not be put on a charge because he was one of the designated dead. lucky for him the Commander "L" who drew the hole had a sense of humour.

The umpires who went around creating this damage were extremely inventive and would not be satisfied unless and until they were sure that the ship and it's DC teams could deal with any eventuality. Large plate and splinter boxes were kept in various parts of the ship, in readiness for making repairs and wooden wedges cut to all shapes and sizes were kept ready for any eventuality.

In Bismarck's case, the ship could not be slowed or stopped due to the presence of cruisers and at least one battleship. The collision mat was the only resource which could be effectively used at that time. The compartment was flooded and could not be pumped out unless the ship was stopped.

Wires were passed under the bow and secured to the bottom of the mat with the other end secured to the top. I would expect screwed eye bolts to be fixed to the center of the mat, so it could be pulled tight against the hull and meet the shape of the flare, once men could enter the compartment. With the mat hanging from the ship's side, winches would draw the mat into place and ropes would create the correct tension on the wire. This evolution might take an hour or more, but at least the ship would not need to stop or slow greatly and could steam and steer so as to give battle should that become necessary. As pumping got under way, the compartment would gradually empty and men could get in and secure ropes to the eye-bolts and draw the mat tight against the hull. Possibly a diver could get in and secure the eye-bolt sooner. A temporary measure will have been completed and very clearly, those engaged in this task knew precisely what they were doing. If that sort of inventiveness was available in the ship, so too would the necessary inventiveness be available for making permanent repairs.

So now we know the ship carried collision mats of suitable size - "for an eventuality which could not be foreseen!" Of course it would be foreseen, Each time a ship goes into battle the equipment for making such repairs is got ready well in advance. When action stations is sounded the DC teams close up and get everything ready.

Bismarck could not slow or stop all the time the British ships were close to her. She had to zig zag so as to slow her pace to the south after detaching PG and only after dark could she slow to about 16 knots, then forcing the British to zig zag to maintain speed.

After 0306 on the 25th, Lutjens steamed at high speed to the south west, putting great distance between himself and PG, making about 280 miles by noon and only when it was clear that the ship would not be attacked did Lutjens permit her to be slowed or stopped so that permanent repairs could be carried out in the bow.

Plates were prepared and at least one man said that the holes had finally been sealed with welded plates. Another man said that one hole had been sealed by welding and the other stopped. Probably this second man did not see the operation completed as he may have been called to his watch station.

Lutjens did not signal Group West saying he had ditched his anchors and neither did he signal that the holes in the bow could not be repaired, both of which would have been essential reading, so Group West would fully understand the tactical situation. If the ship, were coming in with no anchors it would be essential that no French were permitted to work on docking the ship, lest they run it aground. Specialist ship handling personnel would need to be brought from German ports.

It seems to me that there is a desperation among some contributors to this discussion making them write the first thing that comes into their head to try and disprove the idea of the holes being repaired. There is equal testimony both ways, but against the Admiralty concluding that it would and should have been done and my own practical experience saying how it could have been done lends weight to the testimony. The fact that nothing was reported by Lutjens saying the anchors had gone or that the holes could not be repaired, basically confirms that the holes were properly sealed.

Holes in the bow and the weight of water making the bow dig in was worthy of note on the morning of the 24th, yet that water still remaining despite strenuous efforts to get rid of it failing and the ship having to let her anchors go, gets not a single mention.

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 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:26 pm

So, we are in agreement that the ship stopped or slowed significantly somewhere along its journey to sinking west of Brest, and that these repairs were duly reported to Group West?

Or will there be another windstorm of reminiscing, diversion, and "watch my hands"?

Inquiring minds want to know, Mr. Teacher! :ok:
Image

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 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:50 pm

I have never suggested that Bismarck did not slow or stop to make repairs, so I don't know quite what you are driving at. I don't suppose she did stop, because without way on she would roll quite a bit. Making five or ten knots would engage the bilge keels and keep her steady, whilst dropping that bow wave which was flooding the bow.

As for reporting successful repairs, Lutjens did not report the use of the collision mat and leveling the ship on the afternoon of the 24th. All he reported was the damage incurred during the battle.

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 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 3:19 pm

Vic,
When did this second patching take place? According to what has been established, here and in the history that is being challenged, the "initial" patch of mattresses, futhering canvas, ands whatever other shoring-up of the bow hole was done, had failed at some point. Your suggestion is that this occurred during hard maneuvering. Such maneuvering occurred a) when the ship turned back to cover Brinkmann's departure; b)during Victorious' torpedo attack; and, c)during Ark Royal's torpedo attack.

Because Ark Royal's attack did not take place until after Briggs' relocation of the ship in the western approaches, can it be presumed that the ship's more permanent repairs, if they happened, were done between the latter two of the above events? If so, when?

You have winnowed the ship's movements after Brinkmann's departure, albeit with many errors and retractions, so I am asking your opinion of when and where the repairs were made. Bearing in mind that Lütjens WAS NOT AWARE he had shaken his pursuers...did he feel more confident to see fit to reduce speed and/or stop, at some point, to facilitate the work? If yes, then he seems to have taken risks far greater than the need to preserve his anchors (in my opinion).

By this logic, he was risking being caught sooner by his pursuers and/or exposing himself to aerial attack, a far greater danger than an inconvenience to deal with upon reaching port.

You mentioned "careening" which is an anachronism from the age of sailing vessels, but such an operation is simply impossible with a 50,000 ton battleship. If Lütjens wanted to reach safety in Spain, where making such repairs may have been considerably easier, why bother with a "permanent" repair at sea? If his ship was repaired sufficiently for him to continue with Rheinübung, why did he continue on his course toward El Ferrol? Again, the sinking location indicates he was still inbound for the continent.

I am suggesting he made NO such repairs, on the grounds that he was being pursued mightily, on the run, and needed port facilities far more urgently than your reasoning has thus far suggested.

I hope this fills in the question marks for you. I'd like you to do the same, please...without the "when I was a boy..." anecdotes.

Thanks,
Dan
Image

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 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:28 pm

I thought I had made it quite clear that that the collision mat was torn through action of the sea during hard maneuvering to avoid torpedoes from Victorious' planes - At 0007 - 0030 (British time) on the 25th. This event was recorded in Bismarck one hour earlier according to eye witness testimony from survivors. One survivor said he noticed the bow sinking once more after the attack.

At 0306 Lutjens began his maneuver to get to the east of Wake-Walker, by taking advantage of Suffolk turning to the outward leg of a zig zag which dropped her target off the radar. Lutjens swung round under the stern of the British formation and made off at high speed to the southeast.

The ship steamed through the night, making Grid Square AK55 at 0700 and continued steaming hard through the forenoon, after which the ship slowed to make repairs. There was no sign of British ships and the shadowing reports had ceased. The ship was over flown by aircraft during the forenoon and afternoon and Lutjens would not have been certain that he was not being shadowed until confirmation that the shadowing reports had finally stopped.

Pumping in the flooded compartment had begun and steel plates were welded into position during this time. Taking account of the ship's positions given at 1300 and at 1620, the ship slowed to about 24 knots, probably enough to drop the bow wave and stop the bow flooding.

The afternoon of the 25th seems to have been a somewhat relaxed time when officers and men shared a joke about smoking cigars to make the dummy stack look convincing. One might ask what Papa Lehman was doing playing about near the dummy stack if there was any problem welding plates over holes in the bow.

This is how the chain of command works in a warship; a task presents itself in the form of damage or a defect and men are charged with fixing it. If the men chosen are not competent or qualified to do it, the task moves up the scale to Petty officers. If the Petty Officers can't get it sorted it passes on to the Chiefs and if they can't complete it the Artificers and Mechanicians get involved and if they can't sort the thing out, Officers will roll their own sleeves up, put on their white overalls, until finally the most senior will have to report to the Captain that it cannot be done. In Bismarck, having involved the whole of the engineering department and achieved nothing, Captain Lindemann would have to go to Admiral Lutjens and tell him the sad story. Lutjens would then turn to his engineering staff and ask, "Why did you not help them get it sorted?"

Landsmen often try and come the old superior with ex sailors, because they have no idea of the life we led and the things we learned to be proficient at. They think a degree is a substitute for experience. They think we are swinging the lamp. Some sort of jealousy I suppose. Well we all had a choice about what career we would follow when we left school. I chose the navy, whilst others chose a desk and in my time at sea, I saw and did things which most people only ever read about and it seems, judging by what I am seeing here, that even when they have it laid out before them they don't believe or understand any of it. 2400 men go to sea in a fighting ship and just stand around helpless when their ship has holes in it. Not in the British Navy nor in the German navy.

We rarely worried about meeting the enemy in force, or getting mined and sinking with all hands. The thing were were most concerned about was being thought incompetent by our shipmates and the one to really fear, was the chief of your section who would come after you if you didn't do your job right. That says nothing of tons of effluent which would rain down on an incompetent through the ship's chain of command.

Those holes will have been fixed or someone would wish to know why. Is it at all possible even, that the pride of the German Fleet's engineering department, comprising several hundred men, many of whom were qualified to diploma level, could not find the resource to patch two holes in the bow? Such a gross failing would most certainly have figured in the post-op-wash-up at Group West.

Think about it.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:22 pm

Vic and all,

From the first (31st May) reoort on survivor interrogations (ie the one available on this site)
“The shell hit was right forward, close up to my action station, and all we noticed of it was a crump, a sudden whine and swish. We thought at first it had landed right here in compartment 17 near the action station. We immediately checked upon the “Unter-offizier’s quarters on the port side; everything was alright there, and then we noticed how the water was slowly leaking through the armoured bulkheads. We went in with water up to our knees. The shell struck at about the level of the between deck and battery deck. The battery deck ripped open. It was lucky it didn’t explode. A girder that came down had to be slowly welded. We were ordered to do so but couldn’t. However, they managed to weld on some sort of The shell hit was right forward, close up to my action station, and all we noticed of it was a crump, a sudden thing overhead. A bit later on it went wrong again. The battery deck was in a frightful state. I was up to my waist in water after the shell struck. Shortly afterwards when the between deck was flooded – the armoured deck of course – she went deeper at the bow but not so much as 9ft.”
Two repairs tried both failed. Failed. Which is why the Naval Constructor after 36 hours of trying said "Cut the Anchors Off!"

BTW a ten hour anchor and cable jettison is unnecessary. Here is a video of USS Tarawa losing hers in two minutes :D http://youtu.be/b7pRfix_sNg

I have no doubt that dropping an anchor when fully suspended in 2000 plus metres of water is more traumatic but I'm sure Marinebaurat Heinrich Schluter could get it done.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

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 » Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:25 pm

The state of German damage control must really have been something in 1941. A pity for Loben Maund that he apparently did not enjoy such luxury aboard Ark Royal just a few months later!

I wonder why these hull-gape heroes couldn't patch-up the catapult damaged by splinters from PoW's "near miss"?

Ah, well. I'm looking forward to the 75th anniversary May 22-27th, 2016, when we may just "learn" that the wreck lying on the seafloor is NOT that of Bismarck....maybe it will be called "The French Connection Conspiracy".

Regards,

Dan
Image

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 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:30 am

I have seen the interrogation report. The real thing - not the garbled mess which was presented here.

The survivor was clearly not a skilled welder and could not perform the task. No surprise there.

The attempt to weld the girder back into place appears to have been undertaken by the damage control team and although they would have been trained in damage control they would not necessarily have the required skill to make a good weld.

I can weld but I have not been properly trained to do so and would not be able to make any sort of structurally sound weld fro use in a ship's structure. A skilled welder, possibly a senior shipwright, is the man for the job.

I presented this in another topic, but it will do no harm to show it here;
Montage.JPG
Montage.JPG (74.91 KiB) Viewed 2404 times
Apparently this skill had been forgotten by the time Bismarck went to sea. lol

If there were men aboard KM ships who could carry out this sort of work, the problems in the bow would have been sorted once the proper personnel had been brought in to deal with it. You cannot ask a DC team to sort it out. They will stop holes and suppress leaks, pump out and douse fires etc. To make permanent repairs, you need men with the proper skills.

Now think about the time for each operation; Cutting away the girder forming the frame - 10 minutes to do it safely. Cutting out the petaling - 20 minutes. Making good, ready for the weld - 30 minutes. Getting the plate firmly into position 20-30 minutes. Making the final weld - at five inches per minute 30 minutes. That amounts to 2 hours, so allowing for fumbles, action of the sea etc, call it 3 hours and the hole is sealed.

As for the video of USS Tarawa losing her anchor. She was not at sea pitching to the swell and she was anchoring. This tends to indicate that she was in suitable anchorage waters, so the actual weight of cable let go at any time is going to be a fraction of the total weight of cable and anchor. We noticed how the end of the cable threatened structural damage when it flew out of the hole, but that would be nothing compared to a thousand tons of cable hanging full length below the ship which was pitching. If for any reason the cable snubbed as it passed uncontrolled out of the ship it would threaten the whole bow structure. There is simply no workable comparison between that video and what would have happened had Bismarck let go her anchors in one go. Very likely the whipping cable would have torn a hole in the ship's side as it went at the very least.

The ship did not let her anchors go. That is fiction and I am not at all sure from where it originated.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

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

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:47 am

Just checking ..... would these unskilled welders be the same crewmen who professionally welded the sheet steel plate(s) over the hole in Bismarck's shell plating to make the ship fully seaworthy?

B

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Herr Nilsson » Fri Aug 09, 2013 7:31 am

The hit made AGS "unsuitable for North Atlantic in winter".
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

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 » Fri Aug 09, 2013 9:04 am

Byron Angel wrote:Just checking ..... would these unskilled welders be the same crewmen who professionally welded the sheet steel plate(s) over the hole in Bismarck's shell plating to make the ship fully seaworthy?

B
Let's get this clear. The DC teams are made up of junior ratings under the leadership of NCOs. Some may be able to weld, but that is not what damage control in battle is about. DC is like first aid. You do not perform complex surgery at the road side, you don't even dress wounds unless to stop the bleeding. You do only what is necessary to keep the patient alive. The same is true for DC, you do only that which keeps the ship in action. Only after the battle can the most skilled personnel leave their battle stations and make permanent repairs, as we saw in the photos of Graf Spee.

As regards the north Atlantic in winter. It might not be generally realised that winds in winter are far more damaging than the same wind in spring or summer. The reason is the air is denser and wetter. This imparts greater power to the wind for a given speed, which will make the sea much rougher. So a hole which weakens the bow some will be a problem in the worst of weather. AGS was heading into the winter and there was some concern about her making the passage through the Denmark Strait at high speed. Bismarck was a far bigger ship and consequentially was far more heavily constructed, so the same damage in AGS would not automatically translate to Bismarck.

An example of how tough Bismark really was in comparison, is the number of torpedo hits she took, which did not in themselves reduce her capability, or upset the ships structure. We know she was crippled by the hit in the rudder, but that was bad luck. Had AGS taken a single torpedo she would likely have been stopped. Bismarck was big enough to absorb damage. Battleships are built with this in mind whilst cruisers are not. The only problem for Bismarck was a couple of thousand tons of water in the bow. The comparison simply does not hold water.

Also, the shell which hit AGS burst and the shock will have caused structural damage above and beyond a simple hole in the shell plate. This may well have destabilised the bow. Bismarck's shell passed through without bursting, so no shock other than that caused by the weight of the shell striking steel can be considered.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

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

Post by Herr Nilsson » Fri Aug 09, 2013 11:47 am

That means a force 9 gale in May 1941 is negligible. I understand.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

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

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Aug 09, 2013 11:54 pm

Vic Dale wrote:
Byron Angel wrote:Just checking ..... would these unskilled welders be the same crewmen who professionally welded the sheet steel plate(s) over the hole in Bismarck's shell plating to make the ship fully seaworthy?

B
Let's get this clear. The DC teams are made up of junior ratings under the leadership of NCOs. Some may be able to weld, but that is not what damage control in battle is about. DC is like first aid. You do not perform complex surgery at the road side, you don't even dress wounds unless to stop the bleeding. You do only what is necessary to keep the patient alive. The same is true for DC, you do only that which keeps the ship in action. Only after the battle can the most skilled personnel leave their battle stations and make permanent repairs, as we saw in the photos of Graf Spee.

As regards the north Atlantic in winter. It might not be generally realised that winds in winter are far more damaging than the same wind in spring or summer. The reason is the air is denser and wetter. This imparts greater power to the wind for a given speed, which will make the sea much rougher. So a hole which weakens the bow some will be a problem in the worst of weather. AGS was heading into the winter and there was some concern about her making the passage through the Denmark Strait at high speed. Bismarck was a far bigger ship and consequentially was far more heavily constructed, so the same damage in AGS would not automatically translate to Bismarck.

An example of how tough Bismark really was in comparison, is the number of torpedo hits she took, which did not in themselves reduce her capability, or upset the ships structure. We know she was crippled by the hit in the rudder, but that was bad luck. Had AGS taken a single torpedo she would likely have been stopped. Bismarck was big enough to absorb damage. Battleships are built with this in mind whilst cruisers are not. The only problem for Bismarck was a couple of thousand tons of water in the bow. The comparison simply does not hold water.

Also, the shell which hit AGS burst and the shock will have caused structural damage above and beyond a simple hole in the shell plate. This may well have destabilised the bow. Bismarck's shell passed through without bursting, so no shock other than that caused by the weight of the shell striking steel can be considered.

..... Sorry about that, Vic. I thought you were the fellow making the case that welding a plate or two over the shell hole in Bismarck's bow would have been a fairly straightforward exercise for a DC crew and would render her once again fully battle worthy. Did I get that wrong?

B

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:38 pm

Hello Vic and whoever else is still out there,

It has been said
I have seen the interrogation report. The real thing - not the garbled mess which was presented here.
Yes it was garbled and that observation proves you have read it, but apparently you were already familiar with the information, knew that it contradicted your cherished invention and kept it from the rest of us. Hardly the action of the "innocent seeker after knowledge" you claim to be more like a Snake Oil Pedlar seeking to keep the unfortunate side effects secret. .

And also
The ship did not let her anchors go. That is fiction and I am not at all sure from where it originated.
Why in the survivor's reports you have quoted so extensively yourself. By the way here is an account of a damaged vessel dumping her anchor
Meanwhile, every effort had to be made to keep the hulk of Neosho floating and as stable as possible. Down below, the men found some hacksaws, and began the laborious process of sawing through the anchor chain, so the starboard anchor could be jettisoned and the dragging weight removed. They were still canted over with a list of about 24 degrees to starboard. The men sawed and sawed, until blisters reddened their hands, and finally the chain gave. With a heavy clanking, the steel links banged against the hull, and then disappeared. Anchor and 165 fathoms of chain went down. Disappointingly, the change in the list was very slight, evidence of the mortal wounds Neosho had suffered below the water line. It was proof to Captain Phillips that the ship could not last much longer.
http://www.delsjourney.com/uss_neosho/c ... 9_1942.htm

And here is one of the regular and valuedcontributors to this site confirming this with a Bismarck survivor
Bow Anchors
by George Roumbos » Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:12 pm
Hello all,
I agree with Ulrich on this one.
I was at Friedrichruh for the 64th aniversary of Bismarck's sinking. After the lunch we had with the survivors, we had the opportunity to talk with them and one of them specifically told me that they got rid of the anchors and chains after the Denmark Strait battle in order to loose weight on the bow and help with the trimming of the ship. The piece of chain on Bismarck's fore deck could be just a small lenght of one of the chains.
Rgds, George
And lastly a little more validity for the Naval Constructor's opinion
One of the designers of the Bismarck, Mr. Heinrich Schlüter, was quite unhappy with the protective scheme adopted for these ships. He felt that the lower portion of the side armor belt should have been terminated further below the design waterline than was done in the final design. He confided these concerns to his wife before he left on the fateful voyage that was to take his life. Such a change was impossible to make with the standard displacement already exceeding the limit by 7,600 tons and proposals being made to reduce the displacement.
from Dulin and Gaske's Article. Yes the man who said "Cut the Anchors Off" was a part of the design team and attached to Lutjens' Staff in the role of Fleet Engineer ie the highest possible authority.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

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 » Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:02 pm

Wadinga, Please check your PM.
Image

Post Reply