For Phylo!!!! BATTLECRUISERS!!!

First World War 1914-1918 from the German perspective.

Moderator: sniper1shot

User avatar
Davide Pastore
New Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:15 am
Location: Germagnano, Italy

Post by Davide Pastore » Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:10 pm

If you already knew the point, why did you ask me to 'elaborate' it?

'Elaborate' to me means something like: 'Uhm, I never before heard something like this strange theory of yours, so please explain it to us'.

However: please excuse me if I offended you.
Davide

"Solo se la vostra visione va oltre quella del vostro maestro,
siete adatti per ricevere e tramandare la trasmissione."

(Massima Zen)

User avatar
Andy H
Associate
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Andy H » Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:41 am

Commissar D, the Evil wrote:Hi Andy! Hi Davide!!!! AH, good to see that an odd naval topic would lure you!!!

Okay, the coal issue is clear problem, as it was for virtually all warships in WWI.

Bestens,
David
Yes your tugging my chain.

Logistics as we all know are the real means to winning battles and wars.

The noted range was 'at best endurance speeds' rather than actual speeds when undertaking operations. I'm just wondering how you forsee the deployment taking place, in terms of port departure, area of operations, or there prewar deployment akin to Graf Spee in WW2. Alos what RN assets to you see being assigned to 'hunt' down these beasts

Regards
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die

phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking » Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:55 am

How easy was it for "loose" ships and flotillas of any nation to take on coal at neutral ports during WWI? Obviously, by WWII it could be "done" but speed of communications meant that they were putting themselves in harm's way doing so. Things were that much slower in the early decades of the 20th century...so ships COULD take on coal and dash in theory?

"National" coaling stations are fine - and essential - for fleet movements, but could individual ships wander around?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds

User avatar
Andy H
Associate
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Andy H » Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:44 am

Hi Phylo

We have seen in Spee's efforts to evade the RN in WW1 how his whole strategy was based on his ability to re-coal. The British had (merchant)ships in almost every port he visited or wished to, and he was aware that his presence would be soon passed on via telegraph/wireless/telephone comms. His pace on many occasions was reduced to 10kts because of his need to conserve coal. Also the quality of coal was a factor that mustn't be forgotten.

Like in Spee's case the RN were able to muster there forces knowing the limitations Spee had in terms of range and re-coaling

Regards
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die

phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking » Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:49 am

Andy, in a way that's what I mean...relating to David's questions about commerce raiding in WWI. Von Spee was constrained by having to manouver and re-coal the whole East Asia Squadron...but would a single ship - or ships :wink: - be able to come and go more quickly, and thus defeat any RN attempt to find them by flotilla? Or would their pursuit HAVE to be by splitting up into single-vessel search zones?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds

User avatar
Andy H
Associate
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Andy H » Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:55 pm

phylo_roadking wrote:Andy, in a way that's what I mean...relating to David's questions about commerce raiding in WWI. Von Spee was constrained by having to manouver and re-coal the whole East Asia Squadron...but would a single ship - or ships :wink: - be able to come and go more quickly, and thus defeat any RN attempt to find them by flotilla? Or would their pursuit HAVE to be by splitting up into single-vessel search zones?
I dont see the actual size as being that important in this instance. Given the rather static nature of re-coaling opp's it seems to me that numbers matter little. Obviously at sea its 'easier' to spot several ships than one but be it one or more they needed to re-coal

Regards
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die

phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking » Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:16 pm

Andy, how fast could ONE battleship/batttlecruiser-sized vessel re-coal?

Take the example of Von Spee's East Asia Squadron; how many ports could - or WOULD - coal up FIVE major naval vessels at once? OR...would Von Spee allow himself to be caught like that IF he found a neutral port willing to do so? What was doctrine for doing something like that - half recoal, half stand out to sea...then swap around?

Whereas ONE vessel could surely recoal and depart, and require chasing around like the WWII Von Spee, because unless EVERY possible host port was covered...the only OTHER alternative is for the RN to concentrate at strategic points.

Looking at Dave's original post - I don't think the actual problem is ANY different in WWII than it COULD have been in WWI...except the mutual cruising speeds etc. would be that degree slower. It STILL requires the RN to decide what the BEST way for dealing with battleship/battlecruiser-sized commerce raiders will be - covering ALL possible ports and channels, or gathering by flotilla at strategic points and hoping to dash in the right direction once they get the word to go, as the song says...
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds

User avatar
Andy H
Associate
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Andy H » Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:07 pm

Hi Phylo

Thought these quotes would be of interest. Will reply later today to your other queries
The "Great White Fleet" sent around the world by President Theodore Roosevelt from 16 December 1907 to 22 February 1909 consisted of sixteen new battleships of the Atlantic Fleet. The trip proved to be a logistical nightmare. Navy officials scrambled to charter the 49 foreign colliers needed to deliver the 430,000 tons of coal that kept the ships moving from one port to another

A typical battleship of 1914 carried about 2,600 tons of coal, and the time required to load this coal was constrained by the number of coaling booms.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... hip/ac.htm
Coal, commonly referred as "black diamonds," was the ship's sole source of power. Ships would normally go into port and take on coal every two weeks. "Coaling ship" was an all hands evolution and a dirty job. It would take several days to coal a ship. Afterward, the crew would spend several more days cleaning the ship, inside and out, fore and aft, since coal dust settled everywhere.
A member of the "black gang" on the battleship Connecticut described coaling day. "Our ship held about 2,000 tons of the stuff. All the deckhands would go down into the collier (coal supply ship) and fill these big bags with about 500 pounds. Then they'd hoist 'em over to us down in the coal bunkers and we'd spread out the coal with shovels until all the bunkers - about 20 - were full to the top."
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/onl ... cruise.htm

The British in addition did re-coaling at sea, where the Colier was towed behind the BB, and the coal was sent across (in bags using a pulley system) at the rate of 30tons an hour. Not sure if the German Navy had this ability, but obviously the sea state would impose upon transfer rates.

Regards
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die

phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking » Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:30 pm

I actually came across references to the Great White Fleet the other day, chasing down something else...

...Any idea WHY they did this? Sent on SO much coal, I mean? I'd have thought that by 1907-9 - and certainly by 1914-18 - ANY seaport is going to have a coaling yard. And the US Navy surely isn't going to waste time putting into the sort of small port that would have very limited stocks ANYWAY....?

I've chased down some stuff since you posted that; unfortunately, while THAT detail is known, what I can't turn up - it's probably too specialised for the Net - is HOW much was taken on board by what ships and in what ports. The reason this is important is...while SOME of the legs the Fleet sailed were quite short, one only 681 nautical miles - quite a few very WELL over 3500 miles between ports! So without loading figures there's no way of working out consumption :( Also, the vast majority of the twenty stops they made were flag-waving stops in VERY major ports, where surely they could have expected to purchase coal in suitable quantities???

I can understand your earlier point up the thread about quality of coal; you just need to be in a modern railway station when an Xmas "Santa's Special" steamer is leaving and get a facefull of bad smoke, totally unlike anything that anyone would remember from the days of steam, when various identifiably-low smoke types of coal were shipped to depots across the UK.

What did the RN do about stocking coaling stations? Did they "source locally" or ship out everything from the UK to a location like the Falklands for bunkering??? If "local sourcing" - say in the Far East - did this reflect in increased frequency of boiler cleaning?
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds

User avatar
Andy H
Associate
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Andy H » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:49 am

I can understand your earlier point up the thread about quality of coal; you just need to be in a modern railway station when an Xmas "Santa's Special" steamer is leaving and get a facefull of bad smoke, totally unlike anything that anyone would remember from the days of steam, when various identifiably-low smoke types of coal were shipped to depots across the UK.
Yes I remember reading an article many years ago, where it stated that RN warships kept a certain % of the best Welsh anthracite coal, seperate from its normal (bituminous) coal for use in combat etc

I'm guessing but maybe the above was copied within the various Naval coaling stations around the world and Naval coliers.

Regards
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:18 am

Hi Guys, Goeben managed to load 1,600 tons of coal in just over 12 hours during her run to Istanbul.

Best,
David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

User avatar
Andy H
Associate
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Andy H » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:38 am

Commissar D, the Evil wrote:Hi Guys, Goeben managed to load 1,600 tons of coal in just over 12 hours during her run to Istanbul.

Best,
David
Hi David

Was that whilst in port or at sea and what was her max coal tonnage?

Regards
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die

User avatar
Andy H
Associate
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Andy H » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:50 am

Just found this from Castles of Steel, that the Goeben started to coal in Messina after Italian colliers arrived in the evening. However the CO of the Goeben also used 400men from German merchant ships in the harbour to help his crew with the coaling. By noon of the next day some 1500tons of coal had been loaded, with the crew exhausted and collapsed on deck. The CO knew he had to give the men a rest before any combat ensued but there was still much coal to transfer.

So from the above we can see that 12hrs equating to 1500/1600 tons of coal being moved is based on abnormal manpower numbers.

Regards
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die

User avatar
Andy H
Associate
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Andy H » Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:56 am

This maybe of interest as it gives the detailed breakdown of colaing from a collier:-
Note:- Since these few remarks on coaling ship were penned by Commander Sinclair, I believe that the Leviathan has broken all previous records by taking in from a collier (using only her own ship's company) 2400 tons at an average rate of 174 tons per hour.

When the officer goes with the carpenter to view and measure the collier prior to coaling, he should ask the master when ranging his ship alongside to put her bow in as much as possible (the stern will look after itself); also tell him not to drop his anchor too soon, as they generally make much ado over this evolution. Of course it is well known that if coaling at daylight, it saves much time to get the collier alongside, and whips rove, the night before; but if at any time, coaling or otherwise, she begins to work, and it is not war time, never mind the 'record', shove her off - it's not worth it.

Too many nets cannot be used between the vessels to catch the coal bags.

Here at the end of this chapter, in the second edition, I must make mention of two recent records made by the King Edward VII (Captain H. V. Pelly) in the Autumn of 1907, and in February, 1908.

On the first occasion when coaling from the collier Muriel Coverdale, and using her own appliances, she averaged 285 tons per hour on taking in 987 tons; and in the subsequent coaling, from the collier F. Duncan under similar conditions, the coal came in a the rate of 289.2 tons an hour on receiving 1180 tons. Neither must I forget to mention another meritorious performance ie - that of the Illustrious (Captain H. H. D. Tothill) which, on the same occasion that the King Edward VII did so well from the Muriel Coverdale, took in 700 tons at the average of 262 ½ tons per hour.

The question of rapid coaling appears to me to have never been really studied, and even now it is in its infancy. There should be not doubt in a ship of this kind, when coaling from a vessel of the Frances Duncan class, that the average should be at least 250 tons per hour.

Rapid coaling of HM Ships being essential for the efficiency of the Service, no detail, however small, should be left untouched to ensure that the coal is shipped and stowed in the quickest possible manner
Besides this, if coaling from an Admiralty collier, you have in her 400 bags and 100 shovels (navigator), but in an ordinary freight collier there is nothing. You must have a total of at least 250 shovels (navigator), 1000 bags, and 100 barrows. Can you imagine 48 barrows taking the coal away when coaling at the rate of 300 tons per hour? With eight dumping grounds, that means 6 barrows to each place, each hoist consisting of 10 to 12 bags.
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/wff01.htm
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

And so as I patrol in the valley of the shadow of the tricolour I must fear evil, For I am but mortal and mortals can only die

dead-cat
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:44 am

Re:

Post by dead-cat » Tue Jan 27, 2009 11:58 am

phylo_roadking wrote:How easy was it for "loose" ships and flotillas of any nation to take on coal at neutral ports during WWI? Obviously, by WWII it could be "done" but speed of communications meant that they were putting themselves in harm's way doing so. Things were that much slower in the early decades of the 20th century...so ships COULD take on coal and dash in theory?

"National" coaling stations are fine - and essential - for fleet movements, but could individual ships wander around?
there is a book, "Kreuzer Dresden" by Maria Teresa Parker de Bassi, which, among other things, goes into a great detail describing the difficulties encountered through the continous coal shortage, and how it influenced the captain's decisions. and this, being a light cruiser. without naval bases in the operation area, a battlecruiser or even more, a squadron, would stand no chance operating for any longer period of time.

the SMS Dresden attempted several times coaling operations on the open sea. it turned out to be an unrewarding, time consuming and often unsuccessfull business, heavily influenced by the weather.

Post Reply