(No) Fuelling about in Grimstadfjord?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

(No) Fuelling about in Grimstadfjord?

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

Reading about the Bismarck's brief stay in Norway I came across the following:
21 May. At 0900 on 21 May the group put into Kors Fjord near Bergen according to plan. There they refueled during the day and kept out of sight of the enemy.


In Raeder's report to the Fuhrer at the Berghof
More valuable original content kindly provided by Mr Rico.

We all know Bismarck did not refuel in Norway, but it would appear even Raeder himself was misinformed, and this would have added to the consternation at SKL when Lutjens sent urgent messages about a critical fuel situation later in the operation. Some on this site over the years, have offered speculative estimates of Bismarck's fuel consumption and thus status during the operation, but with little knowledge of how weather and trim after damage might have affected the rate of consumption. Also the rate of loss after PoW's midship hit which sent fragments and caused leakage and perhaps contamination is unknown and must be added to problems caused by the bow hit. By the end, Lutjens was committed to a return to France at less than full speed when the Ark's Swordfish dealt the fatal blow. A few extra knots might have made all the difference.

Many have expressed an opinion that Lutjens made a serious mistake in not "topping up" the flagship as well, and speculative reasons have suggested insufficient available fuel, lack of time or even that the extra displacement caused by maybe a thousand tons extra fuel would have reduced maximum speed. It seems unlikely a port the size of Bergen could not have scraped up some more for such a VIP, PG was finished filling up by late afternoon and yet BS only collected her from Kalvanes Bay about 20:00 heading for the northern exit from the offshore islands. Several more hours wasted. Anyway how much speed reduction will a few cms extra draft cause? Raeder clearly thought Bismarck had fuelled too, which would have made her visit worthwhile. (I hope the German original confirms "they")

The Baron's description is of a surprisingly relaxed day at anchor, hosting interested visitors from German units ashore with not much apparent urgency about achieving surprise with the operation. Is there any indication that any critical systems, say radar, needed urgent spares which needed to be picked up and maybe tested before final departure? If Lutjens was wasting time waiting for favourable weather in the Denmark Straits, sitting in Grimstadfjord was directly "in sight" of thousands of "enemy" ie Norwegians, the Resistance reported her presence and as we know she was photographed by the RAF.

Any thoughts or additional information?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: (No) Fuelling about in Grimstadfjord?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

We have to distinguish between "Kampfgruppe" (~task force: Bismarck + Prinz Eugen) and "Verband" (~group: Bismarck + Prinz Eugen + destroyers). Raeder is talking about "Verband".
According the orders only Prinz Eugen and the destroyers had to refuel near Bergen by the tanker "Wollin". It was never planed to refuel Bismarck during that stop.
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: (No) Fuelling about in Grimstadfjord?

Post by wadinga »

Hello Herr Nilsson,

To be perhaps a little pedantic, Bismarck is in both Kampfgruppe and Verband so that is no differentiator. Whichever designation Raeder reported on, Bismarck was implicitly if inaccurately included.

Indeed you are correct, the orders written over a month before http://www.kbismarck.com/operationsbefe ... chefs.html

and reapplied to the May sailing do include:
6.) Während des Liegens vor Bergen Heizölergänzung durch "Prinz Eugen" und die Zerstörer. Vor Durchbruch in den Atlantik voraus-
However what is the point of the "Chief of Fleet" sailing in his flagship if he cannot change his orders, based on prevailing conditions? The timetable drawn up by some staff officers showing time into and out of the Bergen stop are pedantry personified which can surely be scrapped at the Fleet Commander's whim. Sailing into and mooring up in the vicinity of a major port in a hostile occupied country when setting out on a stealthy Atlantic mission was always a flakey idea, when there are a thousand lonely fjords further north, in which unobserved refuelling could have taken place. PG had 2547 cubic metres of fuel onboard on the morning of the 21st and took only an additional 764 so she did not need to stop at Bergen. The destroyers were released from escort duty early on the 22nd, but similar vessels had sailed direct to Narvik earlier in the war, so it seems unlikely they needed to stop either.

The vulnerability of Bergen to air attack direct from the UK had been demonstrated a year earlier when Skuas from Hatston in the Shetland Islands had sunk the immobile Konigsberg alongside the quay. Poor weather conditions over UK bases frustrated an attempt to launch bombers on the 21st until it was too late, and the heroic Maryland flight on the 22nd proved the birds had flown the nest. Luftwaffe fighters would have made a bombing attack on the 21st, late afternoon, a bloody affair but heavy casualties were accepted when going after the big ships in Brest.

To me, it would seem essential to head out on the Atlantic enterprise absolutely full of fuel to cover all eventualities, especially since it was even envisaged that PG might even need to suckle from Bismarck in emergency. Raeder's report gives the impression he thought so too.

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: (No) Fuelling about in Grimstadfjord?

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

I suspect Bismarck was filled up to the top in the beginning including reserve fuel/trim tanks in the bow(Öl- Sonderzuladung 1000/2000 t.)

This "additional" fuel oil could be used up first. Allowing Bismarck to start at Grimstad fjord with around the nominal 7700 m³ fuel oil even without refueling.

These tanks were not allowed to be filled in combat missions for speed an trim ad so on reasons.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: (No) Fuelling about in Grimstadfjord?

Post by wadinga »

Hi Thorsten,

Thanks for contributing.

On reviewing the Bismarck reconstructed KTB it bizarrely records
12:17 In Kalvanesbucht zur Olunbenahme geankert
These are activities carried out only by PG and transferred inaccurately by Hans Henning von Schultz to the Bismarck's record. As we know Bismarck stayed in Grimstadfjord all day and only "picked up" PG in transit, when heading seawards. This inaccurate reconstruction of Bismarck's activities might have misled Raeder in his subsequent report except it was only created in July and he reported to Hitler on the 6th June. However, as we know, the plan and hence "orders" did not not allow for the flagship to "top up" in Norway.

The Baron's account says Bismarck left Gotenhafen short of fully fuelled and he questions Lutjens' decision not to arrange to leave Norwegian waters for the Atlantic foray with absolute maximum fuel. We can all be guilty of hindsight . The highest volume of fuel recorded in the Bismarck KTB is 8,253 cu m on 6th May 1941, unfortunately fuel onboard on departure Gotenhafen is not recorded, but the oil fuel staining identified by Herr Nilsson is at the after starboard control station suggesting the burst hose may have been there rather than forward.

All the best

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