The Kongous were originally battlecruisers, and Bisko was a commerce raider.
The Littorios on the other hand were fast battleships designed to face the French Navy, so the Italians decided to sacrifice operational range since they didn't expected to operate their navy outside the Mediterranean Sea.
Italian naval engines were pretty much all powerful and capable of propelling the ships at high speed, but at the cost of high consumption. So, this is okay.
Italian naval engines were pretty much all powerful and capable of propelling the ships at high speed, but at the cost of high consumption. So, this is okay.
If my memory serves me right Bismarck is the heaviest among them even in full load.
I haven't dive in the mechanical parts of big ships can anyone make a comparison on best fuel effeciency among post 1930 Battleships?
If my memory serves me right Bismarck is the heaviest among them even in full load.
I haven't dive in the mechanical parts of big ships can anyone make a comparison on best fuel effeciency among post 1930 Battleships?
Littorio carred 4,140 tons of fuel oil and had a maximum range of 4,580 nautical miles (8,480 km) at 16 knots (30km/h). Her maximum speed was 31.3 knots (58 km/h) using 137,649 kW to push her 41,000 or so tons of mass.
Bismarck had a cruising range of 8,870 nautical miles (16,430 km) at 19 knots (35 km/h. Its maximum speed was listed at 30.01 knots (55.58 km/h) using 110,450 kW to push her 42,000 or so tons of mass.
Haruna, after being rebuilt in 1935, had a cruising range of 10,000 nautical miles (19,000 km) at 18 knots (33 km/h). Her speed was said to be over 30.5 knots using 101,000 kW to push her roughly 32,000 tons.
If my memory serves me right Bismarck is the heaviest among them even in full load.
I haven't dive in the mechanical parts of big ships can anyone make a comparison on best fuel effeciency among post 1930 Battleships?
Well, I'm not an expert on boilers and propulsion system; however, I went and read the fuel capacity of some other ships, and it seems that the Littorio class was already at the bottom of the scale.
Littorio: 4140 tons
Bismarck: apparently in "normal" configuration 6400 tons
Richelieu: 4700 tons in wartime, 5866 tons in peacetime
Couldn't find anything about the KGV, the American battleship and the Yamato, but it's quite possible that they had even higher capacity.
That photo was taken in 1937, but she achieved that speed on 2 december 1939, so I think she was almost completed at that time. However, she was at light load during that trial (her displacement was 41782t while her max displacement was around 45000t).
That photo was taken in 1937, but she achieved that speed on 2 december 1939, so I think she was almost completed at that time. However, she was at light load during that trial (her displacement was 41782t while her max displacement was around 45000t).
Found a photo taken from around that time, she lacks the fire control rotating turret and the 90 mm AA gun turrets.
But it seems that they managed all the same to reach 29-30 knots during wartime.
It's funny considering their size, the two Italian ships should have decent fuel consumption, but nope, those are signs of water displacement, not tanks.
Couldn't find anything about the KGV, the American battleship and the Yamato, but it's quite possible that they had even higher capacity.
US navy battleship fuel consumption
Uniquely from what I can tell the USN complied records regarding wartime steaming into a full report covering all classes regarding fuel loads and consumption. This is almost certainly a much batted guide then the often theoretical 'design goals' or 'estimates' often battle about. (Japan, Italy, and Germany may simply have lacked the records and probably the will to do this. I'm not sure what the RN excuse was though, perhaps there equivalent simply hasn't been published online) Anyway the totals from this report for the "fast battleships" are as follows, but first a few terms:
"Full load" also refereed to as "radius oil" is the standard load of fuel and the load assumed when citing 'standard' radius of action, but it's composed of both regular 'fuel oil' and also any diesel normally carried. This is why for instance North Carolina is sometimes said to have had 5550 tons of fuel oil, this is technically correct for full load, but it's ignoring 700 tons of diesel also carried and considered by the USN part of the ships 'radius oil' load.
"Emergency" or "Deep" load is when the tanks are absolutely full of as much oil as possible, the reason this condition is different from 'full load' is usually due to stability and draft concerns.
Anyway, on to the ships.
North Carolina:
About about 6250 tons of 'fuel' at full load or 'radius oil', 5550 tons of fuel oil and 700 tons of diesel. Emergency loading pushed total oil too 7,550 tons.
Under war conditions her average radius at 'full load' was about 13,600 nautical miles at ~15 knots and about 11,600 at ~18 knots. At a deep or 'emergency' load condition this changed to about 16,300 and 13,000 respectively.
South Dakota:
She was similiar but had slightly less oil; 6,030 tons at radius oil, 6,800 at emergency load
Despite this average range at 15 knots was 15,900nm and 13,550 at 18. At emergency loading range was about 17,000nm at 15 knots 14,150 at 18 knots.
This is because North Carolina's turbines were already too far along when the higher pressure steam plants came online to be modified to fully take advantage of the change. The South Dakota was designed with the higher steam pressure from the start and reaped the full efficiency benefits.
Iowa:
Iowa had a much larger load; about 8,100 tons at full load. Emergency load was about 9,050 tons.
Radius was about 15,650nm at 15 knots and 13,650 at 18 at full load. Emergency loads pushed this to 16,650 and 14,500.
As an aside the same report indicates that the average cruising speed of these classes was between about 17.5 and 18.7 knots so the slightly higher 18 knot average is probably more indicative of 'average' combat radius for a ship during wartime then 15 to 16 is. As can be seen by this the oldest class, the North Carolina, lagged both in range although it was still very good by foreign standards. It must be said though that The Iowa's range was as much the result of truly prodigious bunkerage as high efficiency. The South Dakota's were clearly the most efficient of the ships.
This can be seen by comparing average fuel burn rate, which the report also gives for a range of speeds, at about 18 knots. At this speed the daily burn rate in barrels for these classes are: North Carolina: 1,580 Sodak: 1,310 Iowa: 1,760
North Carolina was about 10% more efficient the Iowa, but about 20% less efficient then South Dakota which is in turn about about 25% more efficient then Iowa showing once again the cost of overpowering a ship in the quest for high speed.
If my memory serves me right Bismarck is the heaviest among them even in full load.
I haven't dive in the mechanical parts of big ships can anyone make a comparison on best fuel effeciency among post 1930 Battleships?
You can use the figures from the image and the later post plus some simple math to gain a reasonable estimate. All you really do is divide the stated range by the fuel capacity to get mileage (for a given speed).
So let's do a few:
The most common numbers for Yamato are 6300 tons of fuel for a range of about 7200nm at 16 knots. 1.14nm per ton of fuel at that speed.
If Bismark is in fact 6400 tons for 9280nm that's 1.45nm per ton at 16 knots
Littorio at 4140 tons is a shocking awful 1.10nm per ton at 16 knots, slightly worse then Yamato!
KGV had about 4100 tons of fuel by the end of it's career and this was good for about 7,000nm at 16 knots for 1.7nm per ton, not too bad.
Richelieu's fuel load is actually 6470 tons (5866tonnes) at this loading her range is said to be 9,850 at 16 knots is for 1.52nm per ton.
That said the US navy crushes everyone.
Iowa is 8,100 tons for 14,400nm at 16 knots or 1.77nm per ton, Iowa is the least efficient of the US fast battleships... for giggles though
North Carolina 6250 tons for 12,610nm for 2.01nm per ton
South Dakota is 6030 tons for 14,140nm at 16 knots for 2.34nm per ton
Generally speaking the United States Navy had the best engineering plants in pretty much all aspects among naval powers efficient, high powered, reliable, and compact. When it came to machinery the USN was world beating, no one else was close. The British and Japanese were about as reliable, but notably less efficient and compact. The Germans designed very compact and high powered plants but they proved hideously unworkable in service. The French and Italian's designed reasonably reliable and powerful machinery, but much of it was horrifically inefficient.
In particular the USN pioneered the wide (and reliable!) use of very high pressure and temperature boilers and double reduction gearing on it's mid 30s and later designs. 600+ psi at 850F being standard by the time of the war. This was far higher then anyone else really and as many probably know a higher working temperature and pressure makes for more efficient combustion and engine. US ships attained cruising radius's on average at least 20% or so greater then vessels using lower pressure systems for similiar fuel loads. In fact when Washington was assigned to the Home Fleet for a time for instance the British specifically commented on her range in comparison to the King George battleships.
Operating radius and efficiency of US capital ships from the mid 30s onward was pretty much unrivaled during the war.
Ink20 said:
That photo was taken in 1937, but she achieved that speed on 2 december 1939, so I think she was almost completed at that time. However, she was at light load during that trial (her displacement was 41782t while her max displacement was around 45000t).
The light load helped, but the biggest thing was that both the Italian and French forced the ships engines way beyond design specs during speed runs. With brand new machinery and lots of expert engineers about this was workable a few times, but it was impossible in actual service. It would've trashed the plants long term and once parts began wearing out a bit the risk of catastrophic failure would drastically increase. All high powered machinery is designed with a certain safety margin to assure it's long term reliability when operating at it's nominal maximum power (or in case of brief overloads), it's theoretically possible, but normally unwise to dip into that reserve to gain the absolute maximum power the system can provide. (See for instance "War Emergency" settings on aircraft engines)
Off Samar for instance Samuel B Robers engineers locked down safety values and pushed the plants steam pressure significantly beyond it's standard maximum load under the assumption "who cares if this completely destroy the engine we're fucked anyway". In this condition she supposedly managed 28+ knots (design speed was 24) for the duration of the battle.
It gets worse, but to make that point I need to contest something.
Tk3997 said:
Iowa is 8,100 tons for 14,400nm at 16 knots or 1.77nm per ton, Iowa is the least efficient of the US fast battleships...
Richard A. Landgraff of the Long Beach Naval Yard - last living expert of Battleship construction - claims that the Iowa-class's Fuel Economy in WW2 overall was higher, noting that that report did not include data collected from the Wisconsin and Missouri (for obvious reasons, of course). The Iowa herself's low economical performance (something that stuck with her the rest of her life) drug the average down for that report, the other three performed much better (the New Jersey got better as well from experience) which in turn drug the average back up again - but only after the time-frame covered by that report.
Looking at the New Jersey specifically, Landgraff claims that her average fuel load was 7,621 long tons (8535 short tons) and her range with that load - as tested - was 20,150nmi at 100rpms (~16-17kts) when clean (which, to be fair, is rare). That gives her a 2.64nmi:1ton range:fuel ratio, which would put that ship specifically as more efficient than the SoDak (of that report). The Missouri was supposedly the most efficient of the 4 by virtue of having the best turbines. Now, supporting your point, the Iowa herself according to Landgraff (and agreeing with that report) was a pig in comparison to the other US Fast BBs. The design data as provided in that report is correct for the Iowa, including fuel capacity, yet notice the report indicates that her performance under pressure was actually still much lower than expected (by as much as 7%).
The 'It gets worse' part? Post war, certain people wanted to know how the New Jersey crew pulled their shenanigans off, to which they promptly demonstrated their tricks (much of it came down to steam quality and related handling). Turns out that most US ships could pull a good deal of them off, from BBs to CVs down to the little DDs. So, suddenly the 3,300nmi at 20kt Sumner became a 4100nmi at 20kt Sumner and the already impressive SoDak and crew became even more impressive (much of the data went into Carrier handling and helped prolonged the life of the Essexs by virtue of being better for the boilers). ...The Iowa herself never did get much better though, according to Landgraff her 80's efficiency was only 80-something percent when compared to the expected performance set by the other three.
Agreed! These discussions makes me feel it was worthwhile to pick up translating this series. You know, I get surprised fairly by these responses.
On the other hand, I learned a lot about the Navy while doing this series. I often stop and read about battles or look up military specific terminologies in attempts to keep facts straight.
And this partially explains why Vittorio Veneto is drawn as a loli in Warship Girls.
Well, given that the Mediterranean was closed by British-held positions at the Suez canal and at Gibraltar, why give her a higher endurance?
Moreover, on the Warships Girls wiki it says that it's also because of her metacentric height or something, other than the endurance...
Anyway, I don't like what I read about Andrea Doria... they call it the "most powerful monitor" because of her low initial firepower and her 305-mm (12-in) guns... did anyone remember that back in the day (in WWI) a good deal of battleships in all the major navies around the world were armed with same caliber guns? It's hardly fair...
Italian naval engines were pretty much all powerful and capable of propelling the ships at high speed, but at the cost of high consumption. So, this is okay.
Yarrow boilers are a pain in the stern to operate at peak power.
You two are quite fast!Kongou-class (second remodel)Comparison dataAt 18 knotsDon't you think this ocean is too big?They can all go 30 knots!Nautical MilesI'm glad you joined our Fast Battleship party.But by the way,Grglrlrgrl
KywrrrrGrrgglgslOf course.Bismarck-classYamato-class
pantI'd like to resupply... take a lunch break.Vittorio Veneto-classオッ。。。Peculiarity about Italian ships:
Since they were designed to operate by the country's coastline and within the Mediterranean Sea,
their cruising distances were short.We Italian ships are proud of our speed.