Message forum of the Feldgrau.com research community
Yes your tugging my chain.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.
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-coalphylo_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 - 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?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... hip/ac.htmThe "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.
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.
http://www.history.navy.mil/library/onl ... cruise.htmA 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."
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 etcI 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.
Hi DavidCommissar 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.
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
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/wff01.htmBesides 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.
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.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?