Graf Spee Questions
MCM97
questions I had. First, why did Langsdorf break off the fight with Exeter,
Ajax, and Achillies when he was giving them so much trouble. Pictures of these
ships seem to indicate they were damaged heavily. Secondly, why didn't he fight
the British instead of scuttling his ship. For a man who they say had honor, I
would think he would fight it out even if the odds were against him. The least
it seems he could have done was make a run for it so his ship could live to
fight another day. Scuttling the ship and killing himself seems to be the worst
way out. Can any of you guys shed light on this for me? By the way, I'm not
that familiar with naval warfare so forgive me if my questions are too
simplistic or dumb. Thank you all.
----Matt
Paul J. Adam
<mc...@aol.com> writes
>I just watched a documentary on the Graf Spee and it didn't answer some
>questions I had. First, why did Langsdorf break off the fight with Exeter,
>Ajax, and Achillies when he was giving them so much trouble. Pictures of these
>ships seem to indicate they were damaged heavily.
Because he was also getting hit, he was running out of HE ammunition,
and he was unable to either sink or escape the cruisers: who were all
the time reporting his position, for more and heavier units to converge
on.
Langsdorf ran for port to make emergency repairs, hoping to patch his
ship enough to make it home (having lost galley, bakery, water and fuel
purification to the British ships, holed in the bows, Graf Spee was
facing a very difficult trip home even without enemy action)
>Secondly, why didn't he fight
>the British instead of scuttling his ship. For a man who they say had honor, I
>would think he would fight it out even if the odds were against him.
Because many or even most of his crew would have died, in a last stand
against what Langsdorf was led to believe were impossible odds: he
believed that Renown and Ark Royal were racing to the area, and his
chance of inflicting significant damage against a 15"-armed BC and a
cohort of cruisers were all but zero.
>The least
>it seems he could have done was make a run for it so his ship could live to
>fight another day.
He wasn't fit for a long sea voyage, he couldn't defeat or shake off the
shadowing cruisers waiting outside Montevideo. If he tried to run, at
best he'd be sunk, at worst captured.
>Scuttling the ship and killing himself seems to be the worst
>way out. Can any of you guys shed light on this for me?
He prevented his ship being captured by the British, he preserved the
lives of his crew, and he took sole responsibility for his actions.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Juergen Nieveler
MCM97 schrieb in Nachricht <19981111220440...@ng32.aol.com>...
> For a man who they say had honor, I would think he would fight it out even
if the >odds were against him.
He saved the lives of all the crewmen and IIRC a huge number of allied
prisoners on board the Graf Spee instead of trying a kamikaze run against
impossible odds.
This definately qualifies him as honourable!
Juergen Nieveler
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/S d+ s:- a->? C++$>++++$ UHL--@ P- L+ E--- W-@ N++@ o? K?
w++++$ O---($) !M V-- PS+ PE++ Y+>++ PGP++>+++ t+ 5++ X++ R*
tv+ b+++ DI++ D++ G>++++ e* h+ !r y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
PGP-Key available under
www.netcologne.de/~nc-nievelju/
John Lansford
>I just watched a documentary on the Graf Spee and it didn't answer some
>questions I had. First, why did Langsdorf break off the fight with Exeter,
>Ajax, and Achillies when he was giving them so much trouble. Pictures of these
>ships seem to indicate they were damaged heavily.
Langsdorf didn't have access to the photos. Plus, he was low on 11"
shellfire and he still had opponents facing him (although Exeter was
for all intents and purposes out of the fight and withdrawing).
> Secondly, why didn't he fight
>the British instead of scuttling his ship. For a man who they say had honor, I
>would think he would fight it out even if the odds were against him. The least
>it seems he could have done was make a run for it so his ship could live to
>fight another day.
The British spread rumors that Renown was just off the coast waiting
for him, as well as more heavy cruisers. Langsdorf didn't want to
sacrifice his crew for no purpose against overwhelming odds.
John Lansford
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
Chris Pionkowski
>
> I just watched a documentary on the Graf Spee and it didn't answer some
> questions I had. First, why did Langsdorf break off the fight with Exeter,
> Ajax, and Achillies when he was giving them so much trouble. Pictures of these
> the British instead of scuttling his ship. For a man who they say had honor, I
> would think he would fight it out even if the odds were against him. The least
> it seems he could have done was make a run for it so his ship could live to
> way out. Can any of you guys shed light on this for me? By the way, I'm not
> that familiar with naval warfare so forgive me if my questions are too
> simplistic or dumb. Thank you all.
> ----Matt
I have another question, just out of curiosity. I could swear
seeing photos of the Graf Spee sticking out of the water many years
after the sinking.
In the "Lost Ships" documentary the ship is certainly well under
water, (although still quite accessible).
Does anybody know what happened to the river and/or ship to
put her so much deeper?
--
Chris
Chris Pionkowski
E-Mail: cri...@sgi.com
Andrew C. Toppan
> Does anybody know what happened to the river and/or ship to
> put her so much deeper?
IIRC her upperworks were scrapped, and the hull has presumably settled
lower into the mud.
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
Mike Potter
visible.
blkb...@postoffice.pacbell.net
MCM97 wrote:
> I just watched a documentary on the Graf Spee and it didn't answer some
> questions I had. First, why did Langsdorf break off the fight with Exeter,
> Ajax, and Achillies when he was giving them so much trouble. Pictures of these
> ships seem to indicate they were damaged heavily. Secondly, why didn't he fight
> the British instead of scuttling his ship. For a man who they say had honor, I
> would think he would fight it out even if the odds were against him. The least
> it seems he could have done was make a run for it so his ship could live to
> fight another day. Scuttling the ship and killing himself seems to be the worst
> way out. Can any of you guys shed light on this for me? By the way, I'm not
> that familiar with naval warfare so forgive me if my questions are too
> simplistic or dumb. Thank you all.
> ----Matt
Matt,
I think it was a classic example of the "fog of war". Langsdorf probably thought
that the force arrayed against him was more formidable than he thought. The British
rused him over the radio into believing there was an entire armada coming for the
Graf Spee, of which the cruisers were only the advance group for. Not being able to
call the British bluff for what it was- the Big Lie- Langsdorf took the honorable
German soldier's way out, and did the same to his ship, too. One of the
not-too-often times the British defeated an opponent in WWII without massing their
forces for three months beforehand. : )
blkbrant
John Eagan
steam powered cruisers. Langsdorf could not break off the action and get
away and he couldn't/didn't cause enough damage to the Brits to make
them quit. His ship had damage and casulities and once he ducked into
the neutral port the info he had (rumors of many RN ships waiting for
him)must have seemed to him like his ship and crew were doomed. As other
posters have said he took an honorable way out while saving his crew.
blkb...@postoffice.pacbell.net
John Eagan wrote:
> The Graf Spee was diesel powered and had a slower top speed than the RN
> steam powered cruisers. Langsdorf could not break off the action and get
> away and he couldn't/didn't cause enough damage to the Brits to make
> them quit. His ship had damage and casulities and once he ducked into
> the neutral port the info he had (rumors of many RN ships waiting for
> him)must have seemed to him like his ship and crew were doomed. As other
> posters have said he took an honorable way out while saving his crew.
Good point. Funny thing, this tradeoff of speed vs. endurance.
blkbrant
Drazen Kramaric
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>He wasn't fit for a long sea voyage, he couldn't defeat or shake off the
>shadowing cruisers waiting outside Montevideo. If he tried to run, at
>best he'd be sunk, at worst captured.
A question. Were British cruisers radar equipped? If not, how could
they shadow Graf Spee throughout the night in open Atlantic had
Lagsdorff maneuvered his ship towards open sea instead of Montevideo?
Drax
Paul J. Adam
<dkraNOS...@www.zap.hr> writes
>On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 17:42:10 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>He wasn't fit for a long sea voyage, he couldn't defeat or shake off the
>>shadowing cruisers waiting outside Montevideo. If he tried to run, at
>>best he'd be sunk, at worst captured.
>
>A question. Were British cruisers radar equipped?
I believe so, yes.
>If not, how could
>they shadow Graf Spee throughout the night in open Atlantic had
>Lagsdorff maneuvered his ship towards open sea instead of Montevideo?
Shadowing enemy units _was_ a key cruiser role, remember, and one they
trained for extensively. If Langsdorff wants to waste his dwindling
ammunition shooting at shadows, then he's illuminating himself better
than any starshell for the purposes of shadowing: if he holds his fire,
he can't drive off the cruisers.
He was in no shape to run for Germany. But even had he tried to (and
Harwood had no way to know what damage Graf Spee had suffered) he would
have had two cruisers - both significantly faster - in close attendance,
with neither the means to drive them off nor to outrun them.
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
> Drazen Kramaric wrote:
> >
> >
> > A question. Were British cruisers radar equipped? If not, how could
> > they shadow Graf Spee throughout the night in open Atlantic had
> > Lagsdorff maneuvered his ship towards open sea instead of Montevideo?
> >
>
> Neither Exeter nor Ajax were fitted with radar at the time; they
> received type 279 in March 1941 and July 1940 repectively. HMS
> Cumberland received types 281, 285 and 273 in October 1941. They would
> have to rely on Mk1 eyeball!
On a clear calm night at sea shadowing a large ship is not especially
difficult.
Vince
Mr Jenks
>
>
> A question. Were British cruisers radar equipped? If not, how could
> they shadow Graf Spee throughout the night in open Atlantic had
> Lagsdorff maneuvered his ship towards open sea instead of Montevideo?
>
> Drax
Neither Exeter nor Ajax were fitted with radar at the time; they
received type 279 in March 1941 and July 1940 repectively. HMS
Cumberland received types 281, 285 and 273 in October 1941. They would
have to rely on Mk1 eyeball!
Simon [sjen...@enterprise.net]
Drazen Kramaric
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Shadowing enemy units _was_ a key cruiser role, remember, and one they
>trained for extensively. If Langsdorff wants to waste his dwindling
>ammunition shooting at shadows, then he's illuminating himself better
>than any starshell for the purposes of shadowing: if he holds his fire,
>he can't drive off the cruisers.
But shadowing (without radar) during night in open Atlantic is not a
trivial job. British radar equipped cruisers had their share of
problems trying to sfadow Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. A bit of bad
weather, sudden German maneuver and Graf Spee is gone. Without
aircraft it wouldn't be easy.
>
>He was in no shape to run for Germany. But even had he tried to (and
>Harwood had no way to know what damage Graf Spee had suffered) he would
>have had two cruisers - both significantly faster - in close attendance,
>with neither the means to drive them off nor to outrun them.
All I say is it wouldn't be easy during dark in open Atlantic. In my
opinion, it wasLangsdorff's duty to try to break to Germany.
Drax
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
> On Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:40:57 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Shadowing enemy units _was_ a key cruiser role, remember, and one they
> >trained for extensively. If Langsdorff wants to waste his dwindling
> >ammunition shooting at shadows, then he's illuminating himself better
> >than any starshell for the purposes of shadowing: if he holds his fire,
> >he can't drive off the cruisers.
>
> But shadowing (without radar) during night in open Atlantic is not a
> trivial job. British radar equipped cruisers had their share of
> problems trying to sfadow Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. A bit of bad
> weather, sudden German maneuver and Graf Spee is gone. Without
> aircraft it wouldn't be easy.
Big difference between the foggy north atlantic and the clear sunny
equatorial atlantic. Remember that Graf spee is useless unless it finds
Merchant ships. every time it finds one you get a new sighting.
Vince
Eugene Griessel
>Big difference between the foggy north atlantic and the clear sunny
>equatorial atlantic. Remember that Graf spee is useless unless it finds
>Merchant ships. every time it finds one you get a new sighting.
Vince, you have a *lot* to learn about the South Atlantic! Most of
the battle took place around 35 degrees South - no stretch of the
imagination makes that "equatorial".
Eugene L Griessel eug...@dynagen.co.za
www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat Page - www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/eug3.htm
Thought for the day .......
Statistics is the art of drawing a crooked line from
an unproved assumption to a foregone conclusion.
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <vb...@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >Big difference between the foggy north atlantic and the clear sunny
> >equatorial atlantic. Remember that Graf spee is useless unless it finds
> >Merchant ships. every time it finds one you get a new sighting.
>
> Vince, you have a *lot* to learn about the South Atlantic! Most of
> the battle took place around 35 degrees South - no stretch of the
> imagination makes that "equatorial".
Equatorial seas are closer to the equator than to the pole. the
equatorial seas run from 45degrees north to 45 degrees south. the polar
seas are north and south of 45 degrees.
roughly the boundary describes the contrast between the trade winds and
the westerlies. there is a great difference in climate
As Brittanica says
As in the North Atlantic, the weather usually is
settled and fine in the latitudes of the high pressure
but is unsettled and stormy in the higher latitudes of
the westerlies. The great storminess of the Southern
Hemisphere westerlies derives largely from the
temperature contrast set up by the cold Antarctic
continent and the adjacent open sea, rather than from
the west-east contrast described in connection with
the North Atlantic storms.
I realize that the precise boundaries often shift, and tropical storms
are a problem but the general pattern is much clearer weather in the
equatorial seas. than in the polar seas.
Vince
Peter Skelton
>Eugene Griessel wrote:
>>
>> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <vb...@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Big difference between the foggy north atlantic and the clear sunny
>> >equatorial atlantic. Remember that Graf spee is useless unless it finds
>> >Merchant ships. every time it finds one you get a new sighting.
>>
>> Vince, you have a *lot* to learn about the South Atlantic! Most of
>> the battle took place around 35 degrees South - no stretch of the
>> imagination makes that "equatorial".
>
>Equatorial seas are closer to the equator than to the pole. the
>equatorial seas run from 45degrees north to 45 degrees south. the polar
>seas are north and south of 45 degrees.
<s>
Reference please.
Equatorial seas are those having conditions similar to those near the
equator. In some texts the term is applied to waters between the two
tropics. More often, the definition is applied bvased on water temperature,
marine life and the like. I've never heard it applied to the waters off
Halifax, Nova Scotia, or even New York City (even though these are on the
side of the Atlantic wher tropical conditions go farther north).
You may remember the term, "The Roaring Forties" for the band of strong
winds the clippers used to make passage miles to and from Australia. The
name is from the latitude, and it has no tropical connotation at all.
--
Peter Skelton
Skelton & Associates
613/634-0230
p...@kingston.net
Peter H. Granzeau
<vb...@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
>Equatorial seas are closer to the equator than to the pole. the
>equatorial seas run from 45degrees north to 45 degrees south. the polar
>seas are north and south of 45 degrees.
I would have said "equitorial" seas were between the Tropics of Cancer
and Capricorn, 23.5 N to 23.5 S. There's a band of temperate zone
seas north and south of those, ending at the polar circles. In the
southern latitudes, the "roaring 40s" are notorious for the trade
winds that go nearly all the way around the earth, with nearly no land
masses to interrupt them.
Regards, PHG
(To reply by mail, send to my initials at the same site)
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
>
>
> Equatorial seas are those having conditions similar to those near the
> equator. In some texts the term is applied to waters between the two
> tropics. More often, the definition is applied bvased on water temperature,
> marine life and the like. I've never heard it applied to the waters off
> Halifax, Nova Scotia, or even New York City (even though these are on the
> side of the Atlantic wher tropical conditions go farther north).
I agree that like any arbitrary line, the closer you get to the line the
harder it is to distinguish.
Icebergs tend ot be found ot the norht of 45 degrees norht and
Hurricanes to the south.
I dont have a refereence, but I think the useage aroes in the maritime
insurance industry.
>
> You may remember the term, "The Roaring Forties" for the band of strong
> winds the clippers used to make passage miles to and from Australia. The
> name is from the latitude, and it has no tropical connotation at all.
Im not hung up on the term. my point is the difficulties of cruisers in
keeping station on a ship at night in the fog of the denmark strait has
little relevance to the task of shadowing a ship in south 35 degrees
lattitude. on average the conditions that limit visibility decline as
you approach the equator.
Vince
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
> On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:12:19 -0800, "Prof. Vincent Brannigan"
> <vb...@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >Equatorial seas are closer to the equator than to the pole. the
> >equatorial seas run from 45degrees north to 45 degrees south. the polar
> >seas are north and south of 45 degrees.
>
> I would have said "equitorial" seas were between the Tropics of Cancer
> and Capricorn, 23.5 N to 23.5 S.
These are tropical waters. as the waters north and south of the arctic
and antarctic circles are arctic and antarctic respectively.
There's a band of temperate zone
> seas north and south of those, ending at the polar circles. In the
> southern latitudes, the "roaring 40s" are notorious for the trade
> winds that go nearly all the way around the earth, with nearly no land
> masses to interrupt them.
I agree that clsoe to the boundaries the conditions tend to blur. its a
very arbitrary line, like those which separate the various oceans.
Vince
James Tuttle
> Back to the ADMIRAL GRAF SPEE- should have run for it after knocking
> out EXETER, in hopes the other two might be low on fuel and drop off
> the chase later. Do a GOEBEN and try for the Spanish Canaries, with a
> view to being sprung soon as Germany made the hoped for advances in
> the war. Worth a try and never say die! Anyway what was the plan?
> When they sailed on that job, there must have been contingencies
> worked out for what to do after you are finally caught. They must
> have had some sort of op order appendix for that. Did it say, nip in
> the nearest port and blow up the ship and then shoot yourself?
Wasn't Langsdorff acting under instructions from Wilhelmshaven or
Berlin? Didn't he try to intern at Montevideo, only to be told he had
to sail in 48 hours or thereabouts, perhaps after emergency repairs?
I don't see GOEBEN as a parallel; the Black Sea was a good haven, but
not the South Atlantic.
I haven't read about the GRAF SPEE in a while, but my guess is that
Langsdorff decided he couldn't shoot his way out of the Plate estuary.
B F Lake
>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 00:12:19 -0800, "Prof. Vincent Brannigan"
<vb...@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
>Equatorial seas are closer to the equator than to the pole. the
>equatorial seas run from 45degrees north to 45 degrees south. the polar
>seas are north and south of 45 degrees.
and Capricorn, 23.5 N to 23.5 S. There's a band of temperate zone
seas north and south of those, ending at the polar circles. In the
southern latitudes, the "roaring 40s" are notorious for the trade
winds that go nearly all the way around the earth, with nearly no land
masses to interrupt them.
Its a good thing nobody said the Earth was round or Vince would have
everyone arguing right after that it was flat! Meanwhile, PHG got the
Trades in the wrong place.
The Trades run from the Horse latitudes (~30) highs to the equatorial low
tending easterly so are NE above and SE below the equator. The Doldrums
lie between these near the equator. The middle latitudes higher N and S of
the Horse latitude , have Westerlies, contain frontal system weather and
are the Roaring 40s in the south due to the long fetch.
EXETER, in hopes the other two might be low on fuel and drop off the chase
later. Do a GOEBEN and try for the Spanish Canaries, with a view to being
sprung soon as Germany made the hoped for advances in the war. Worth a try
and never say die! Anyway what was the plan? When they sailed on that
job, there must have been contingencies worked out for what to do after you
are finally caught. They must have had some sort of op order appendix for
that. Did it say, nip in the nearest port and blow up the ship and then
shoot yourself?
Barry
Lars Arnestam
James Tuttle wrote:
>
> Wasn't Langsdorff acting under instructions from Wilhelmshaven or
> Berlin? Didn't he try to intern at Montevideo, only to be told he had
> to sail in 48 hours or thereabouts, perhaps after emergency repairs?
>
> I don't see GOEBEN as a parallel; the Black Sea was a good haven, but
> not the South Atlantic.
>
> I haven't read about the GRAF SPEE in a while, but my guess is that
> Langsdorff decided he couldn't shoot his way out of the Plate estuary.
The GRAF SPEE was granted 72 hours in Montevideo. During this time there
circulated information, which seems to have been regarded as reliable, that
both the RENOWN and the ARK ROYAL, possibly also the DUNKERQUE, were on
their way and would be outside of Montivideo very soon. Don't know if this
rumor was set in motion by the British, or if it was "spontaneous". As it
were, the RENOWN and the ARK ROYAL may have been on their way towards
Montivideo, but they were nowhere near by the time that Langsdorff left
port. The only ships waiting for him at that time were the AJAX, ACHILLES
and CUMBERLAND (which had replaced the EXETER).
Even so, I agree with previous posters who have argued that the cruisers
could have shadowed him until heavier units had had time to come to the
scene. There were three cruisers available, and the GRAF SPEE could at the
most do 28 knots (and probably not close to that by that time), so the
cruisers had a comfortable speed margin ( more so than compared to the
BISMARCK). It may be stretching things just a little, but basically I would
say that the GRAF SPEE was doomed the moment she was discovered by the three
cruisers.
Lars Arnestam
Roy McCammon
>It may be stretching things just a little, but basically I would
> say that the GRAF SPEE was doomed the moment she was discovered by the three
> cruisers.
One author (Groves I think) suggests that GS's diesel engines
could come up to speed much more quickly than the British
steam engines. If GS had turned tail and poured on the
power, it is suggested that she could have been over the
horizon before the British could be up to speed. Of
course the British had float planes, so it becomes a question
of whether GS could stay over the horizon until it was too
dark for the float planes.
Wasn't Langsdorf under orders to do exactly that? Isn't that
why he killed himself (disobey orders and ultimately lose the
ship)?
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Eugene Griessel
>One author (Groves I think) suggests that GS's diesel engines
>could come up to speed much more quickly than the British
>steam engines. If GS had turned tail and poured on the
>power, it is suggested that she could have been over the
>horizon before the British could be up to speed. Of
>course the British had float planes, so it becomes a question
>of whether GS could stay over the horizon until it was too
>dark for the float planes.
No that is not true. The diesel engines would be slower to come up to
speed than the steam turbines of the cruisers. Those old diesels
cracked liners very fast if you suddenly threw open the throttle.
They had to be slowly brought up to speed, a limit on temperature
increase per minute being the important factor. I think he is
confusing the fact that it is quicker to start a diesel from cold than
a steam plant. In this case it does not apply as the cruisers had
steam up already.
Eugene L Griessel eug...@dynagen.co.za
www.dynagen.co.za/eugene
SAAF Crashboat Page - www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/eug3.htm
Thought for the day .......
A good scapegoat is almost as good as a solution.
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
>
snip
>
> No that is not true. The diesel engines would be slower to come up to
> speed than the steam turbines of the cruisers. Those old diesels
> cracked liners very fast if you suddenly threw open the throttle.
> They had to be slowly brought up to speed, a limit on temperature
> increase per minute being the important factor. I think he is
> confusing the fact that it is quicker to start a diesel from cold than
> a steam plant. In this case it does not apply as the cruisers had
> steam up already.
something isn't quite right here. The "virtually" instant availability
of maximum power was one of the major claimed advantages of all diesel
ships. both Uboats and american submarines used to make very abrupt
changes in engine speed without the slightest effect on the diesels
themselves. In fact the system on american ships encouraged running one
or more diesels at full speed and turning the others off. I cant
believe they would have doen this if there was any penalty for startng
the cold engine. Im not sure the temperature changes very much with
speed. similarly, cold turbines had to be warmed up.
Vince
Peter Skelton
line (it takes five minute to an hour to get a boiler going, depending on
lots of arcane stuff). The cruisers were good for a bit over thirty knots
flat out, or somewhere in the high teens for passages. At least one of them
would almost certainly have had boilers for twenty-four or five knots on
line. That gives GS a margin of two knots or so, if she could still make
her design speed, which isn't very likely. That wold last for less than
fifteen minutes, after which she'd be four or so knots slower (than all
three of the British ships). IIRC, visibility was fairly good on the day so
escaping the ships was iffy. Also didn't Exeter carry a float plane?
Peter Skelton
rbmcc...@mmm.com (Roy McCammon) wrote:
>Lars Arnestam wrote:
>
>
>>It may be stretching things just a little, but basically I would
>> say that the GRAF SPEE was doomed the moment she was discovered by the three
>> cruisers.
>
>One author (Groves I think) suggests that GS's diesel engines
>could come up to speed much more quickly than the British
>steam engines. If GS had turned tail and poured on the
>power, it is suggested that she could have been over the
>horizon before the British could be up to speed. Of
>course the British had float planes, so it becomes a question
>of whether GS could stay over the horizon until it was too
>dark for the float planes.
>
Eugene Griessel
Different diesels Vince. There are diesels and there are diesels.
High speed diesel engines, revolutions over 700 rpm, are very
responsive. Full power from nothing in very quick time - a few
seconds or so. But these are small engines, small pistons no big
moving masses no massively thick cast iron cylinder liners. Medium
speed diesels run in the 150 - 700 rpm range and they are still pretty
good. These are however a fairly modern development in diesel
engines. Slow speed diesels - rpm around 100 - the so-called
cathedral engines - are not so responsive. Massively powerful, but
one must go gently on them. On the MAN KZ85, to come up to full speed
from harbour speed, used to take us about 3/4 hour. In emergencies it
can be done faster but at much greater risk. These engine are big - 4
to 5 stories high.
That is the sort of engine the Graf Spee had fitted to it. At that
stage of diesel development it was the only diesel that could give
that sort of horsepower. Graf Spee had 8 MAN cathedral type engines -
and they were finicky engines. And gave lots of problems.
B F Lake
already be at maximum boiler power and would not need to normalize to go
faster. Their only pursuit problem would be fuel. GS diesels presumably
like today's kind, most efficient at full power-why DE is best way to use
them not slow down the engine, but diesel also good for long distance
cruising on fuel, so it depends on fuel states.
GS should have tried to cripple the two remaining cruisers and then made
off in hopes of Lady Luck giving her a break or two -no worse than the
problem of getting home at end of that cruise would have been anyway.
Suspect problem was it was only 1939 and nobody used to being at war yet.
Regards,
Barry
TMOliver
on GRAF SPEE is reported to have damaged the fuel
filtration equipment (all/some/part?). Diesels of the
time were sensitive to solids and water in the fuel, and
SPEE's fuelings during her sortie were not from sources
of guaranteed vintage distillate.
--
TMOliver (who has seen the elephant)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gentlemen, charge your glasses for a toast to the ship!
May she and all of those who sail in her
Find fair winds and following seas,
And when her bell has last struck eight on time,
Come to safe moorings in the Isles of the Blest,
Secure in the regard of grateful nation and its
citizenry...
i. nilsson
<vb...@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
.............snip............
>something isn't quite right here. The "virtually" instant availability
>of maximum power was one of the major claimed advantages of all diesel
>ships. both Uboats and american submarines used to make very abrupt
>changes in engine speed without the slightest effect on the diesels
>themselves. In fact the system on american ships encouraged running one
>or more diesels at full speed and turning the others off. I cant
>believe they would have doen this if there was any penalty for startng
>the cold engine. Im not sure the temperature changes very much with
>speed. similarly, cold turbines had to be warmed up.
================
Changes in engine speed is different from starting up from cold, and
can be made much faster; the smaller the engine, the faster. Diesels
of the GS:s type would normally need 45-60 minutes from cold start to
full output. They could, of course,be brought up to full output almost
immediatly, but one or more cracked cylinder liners, pistons or
cylinder heads would very likely be the result, and so necessitate
shutting down the engine. However, the necessity of keeping reduced
speed in port & channels is included in this time, consequently I
believe the GS could reach full output maybe 15-20 minutes after
reaching open sea.
As a diesel's optimal output is 85 to 90% of M(aximum) C(ontinuous)
R(ating), it makes sense to run only the number of engines required
for the moment in a multi engine vessel.
Turbines are normally kept on stand by warming by rotating very slowly
and can so be brought up to full output rather quickly.
AFAIK, the only engine type capable of giving full output virtually
immediatly from a cold start, is the gas turbine.
= = = = =
ingemar
B F Lake
had the 8 diesels operating at 450 rpm in two groups of 4 through Vulcan
gear which reduced to a shaft at 250 rpm. (Jane's) Presumably this was at
full power. How did speed get set-through adjusting the gearing or engine
speed or both?
Anyway, the point is she carried 3,500 tons of fuel radius 20,000 miles
at 15kts. Any idea what her radius would be at 26kts?
LEANDER class carried 1,800 tons of oil and radius can be guessed from
smaller ARETHUSAs which carried 1,200 tons radius 12,000 miles at
economical speed.(7,000 tons displacement vs 5300-so the same radius?) So
lets say GS and AJAX both at 60% fuel (any real figures available?) and
chase starts at 26 kts with AJAX zig-zagging to avoid 11" pot shots at 29
kts (max was 32.5) How far do they go before AJAX has to drop out or does
she, and what is the distance from say the Platte to the Canaries?
Sorry not enough info to work this out myself,
Barry
Roy McCammon
>
> The relative times to speed depend on how many boilers the cruisers had on
> line (it takes five minute to an hour to get a boiler going, depending on
> lots of arcane stuff). The cruisers were good for a bit over thirty knots
> flat out, or somewhere in the high teens for passages. At least one of them
> would almost certainly have had boilers for twenty-four or five knots on
> line. That gives GS a margin of two knots or so, if she could still make
> her design speed, which isn't very likely. That wold last for less than
> fifteen minutes, after which she'd be four or so knots slower (than all
> three of the British ships). IIRC, visibility was fairly good on the day so
> escaping the ships was iffy. Also didn't Exeter carry a float plane?
Thank you for your reply.
I infer from what you posted that the cruiser squadron,
knowing it was hunting GS would be sure that at least one
cruiser had all boilers on line for the purpose of
giving chase should GS appear. Is that right? Is
it normal procedure at other times.
Of course if that is what happens, at least GS has only
one cruiser to shoot at while trying to get away, but
over the stern shots are not noted for accuracy.
Peter Skelton
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>>
>> The relative times to speed depend on how many boilers the cruisers had on
>> line (it takes five minute to an hour to get a boiler going, depending on
>> lots of arcane stuff). The cruisers were good for a bit over thirty knots
>> flat out, or somewhere in the high teens for passages. At least one of them
>> would almost certainly have had boilers for twenty-four or five knots on
>> line. That gives GS a margin of two knots or so, if she could still make
>> her design speed, which isn't very likely. That wold last for less than
>> fifteen minutes, after which she'd be four or so knots slower (than all
>> three of the British ships). IIRC, visibility was fairly good on the day so
>> escaping the ships was iffy. Also didn't Exeter carry a float plane?
>
>Thank you for your reply.
>
>I infer from what you posted that the cruiser squadron,
>knowing it was hunting GS would be sure that at least one
>cruiser had all boilers on line for the purpose of
>giving chase should GS appear. Is that right? Is
>it normal procedure at other times.
Twenty-five knots is about 2/3 power for a DD, possibly about the same for
a light cruiser (IIRC Preston has something abot this). At defense stations
(second level of readiness, the name varried) and at certain action
sations, full power might not be called for.
The squadron was capably lead (Harwood? my mind is a bit affected by
seasonal cheer), this is the sort of thing I'd expect to be covered.
Someone else posted that the cruisers were at action stations when they
sighted GS. I can't remember, but, if he is correct, they'd have had full
speed available.
>Of course if that is what happens, at least GS has only
>one cruiser to shoot at while trying to get away, but
>over the stern shots are not noted for accuracy.
>
True
>Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
>
--
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
> ================
>
> Changes in engine speed is different from starting up from cold, and
> can be made much faster; the smaller the engine, the faster. Diesels
> of the GS:s type would normally need 45-60 minutes from cold start to
> full output.
I am perfectly willing to learn, but something does not seem correct.
1) Diesels are internal combusion compression fired engines.
2) compressing the air heats it so that injected fuel ignites
3) heat from that ignition passes into the steel cylinder, throught the
cylindeer and out into the air.
4) expanding gasses from the combusiton push the cylinder down pressure
stays roughly constant
I just don't see on this record any reason for 45-60 minutes to full
power. Most of the heating of the air comes from the compression, and
only the remainder from the mass of steel engine. But even if the
engine contributes, steel heats up quickly. Now I know that
supplemental heating is required in the very early stages of operations
(e.g. glow plugs) but IIRC the compression of the diesel engine does
not change with the size of the engine. Wall thickness is a function of
compression. heat characteritics are a function of wall thickness.
I dont see any explanation that would indicate that there is a slow
heating up process.
Vince
Paul J. Adam
<vb...@umail.umd.edu> writes
>I am perfectly willing to learn, but something does not seem correct.
>
>1) Diesels are internal combusion compression fired engines.
>2) compressing the air heats it so that injected fuel ignites
>3) heat from that ignition passes into the steel cylinder, throught the
>cylindeer and out into the air.
>4) expanding gasses from the combusiton push the cylinder down pressure
>stays roughly constant
>
>I just don't see on this record any reason for 45-60 minutes to full
>power. Most of the heating of the air comes from the compression, and
>only the remainder from the mass of steel engine. But even if the
>engine contributes, steel heats up quickly.
The problem is that differential heating of the cylinders and especially
the liners (the inside's hot, the outside's cold) produces differential
expansion and thus stresses the metal, and the larger the cylinder the
larger the stresses thus produced.
For an example, pour boiling water into a chilled water glass. The
differential expansion of the inside, and the slowness of conduction to
the outside, can cause the glass to crack or shatter. If you raise the
temperature more gently, then you avoid the problem.
The higher the power in a diesel, the more fuel you're burning and the
more heat you're generating, and the cylinder liner can only conduct so
much heat away: so, power has to be applied gently until the engine's
reached operating temperature.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
> In article <36818B...@umail.umd.edu>, Prof. Vincent Brannigan
> <vb...@umail.umd.edu> writes
> >I am perfectly willing to learn, but something does not seem correct.
> >
> >1) Diesels are internal combusion compression fired engines.
> >2) compressing the air heats it so that injected fuel ignites
> >3) heat from that ignition passes into the steel cylinder, throught the
> >cylindeer and out into the air.
> >4) expanding gasses from the combusiton push the cylinder down pressure
> >stays roughly constant
> >
> >I just don't see on this record any reason for 45-60 minutes to full
> >power. Most of the heating of the air comes from the compression, and
> >only the remainder from the mass of steel engine. But even if the
> >engine contributes, steel heats up quickly.
>
> The problem is that differential heating of the cylinders and especially
> the liners (the inside's hot, the outside's cold) produces differential
> expansion and thus stresses the metal, and the larger the cylinder the
> larger the stresses thus produced.
no, its the thicker the cylinder wall, not the larger the cylinder
wall thickness does not increase with cylinder size.
> For an example, pour boiling water into a chilled water glass. The
> differential expansion of the inside, and the slowness of conduction to
> the outside, can cause the glass to crack or shatter. If you raise the
> temperature more gently, then you avoid the problem.
1) Steel is tough, glass is not. steel is routinely heated cherry red,
and plunged into cold water.
I never saw a glass cannon or a glass pressure vessel (yes I know in
theroy you can build both. glass is strong.
2) your car runs with almost 1000 degrees f difference between the
inside and the outside of the cylinder.
again, I can see a couple of minutes for stability , no problem I dont
see an hour
> The higher the power in a diesel, the more fuel you're burning and the
> more heat you're generating, and the cylinder liner can only conduct so
> much heat away: so, power has to be applied gently until the engine's
> reached operating temperature.
>
the heat goes out in the exhaust. you only input heat to the wall at
the difference between the temperature of the burning fuel and
temperature the cylinder wall Burning more fuel in a bigger cylinder
doesnt get you a higher temperature ( for example one burner on your
stove may be bigger, but its no hotter) The wall thickness is a function
of the pressure of the cylinder, not its size. Thermal inertia is a
function of thickness. I agree you have more heat so you can transfer
heat with a smaller drop in cylinder temperature so the engine heats up
faster.
but the absolute abiilty of the engine to trasnfer the heat is the same
for any engine made of the same steel. The wall will be of the same
thickness. the size of the cylinder doesnt matter. If it takes 6
minutes in a small engine it will take six minutes in a large engine.
I fully accept that there mamy be a reason for the time stated, I
simply dont see it yet.
Vince
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
>
> Different diesels Vince. There are diesels and there are diesels.
> High speed diesel engines, revolutions over 700 rpm, are very
> responsive. Full power from nothing in very quick time - a few
> seconds or so. But these are small engines, small pistons no big
> moving masses no massively thick cast iron cylinder liners. Medium
> speed diesels run in the 150 - 700 rpm range and they are still pretty
> good. These are however a fairly modern development in diesel
> engines. Slow speed diesels - rpm around 100 - the so-called
> cathedral engines - are not so responsive. Massively powerful, but
> one must go gently on them. On the MAN KZ85, to come up to full speed
> from harbour speed, used to take us about 3/4 hour. In emergencies it
> can be done faster but at much greater risk. These engine are big - 4
> to 5 stories high.
> That is the sort of engine the Graf Spee had fitted to it. At that
> stage of diesel development it was the only diesel that could give
> that sort of horsepower. Graf Spee had 8 MAN cathedral type engines -
> and they were finicky engines. And gave lots of problems.
According to Groener GERMAN WARSHIPS P 60 the Graf spee had 450 rpm 9
cyl diesels
and transmissions for the shafts. Janes also gives them 450 RPM
I dont think you are talking aobut the same engines.
Vince
Eugene Griessel
>Additionally (and hitherto unmentioned), one of the hits
>on GRAF SPEE is reported to have damaged the fuel
>filtration equipment (all/some/part?). Diesels of the
>time were sensitive to solids and water in the fuel, and
>SPEE's fuelings during her sortie were not from sources
>of guaranteed vintage distillate.
They still are! Injectors are lapped to incredibly fine tolerances.
Bits of muck get in and they seize or burn or just carry on miserably.
We used to filter and centrifuge fuel at every corner, just about.
One the FPBs we had 4 separate filtration points bewteen daily use
tank and injector. And the fuel was filtered to 1.5 microns before
pumping into the daily use tanks.
Eugene Griessel
>
>no, its the thicker the cylinder wall, not the larger the cylinder
>wall thickness does not increase with cylinder size.
Oh yes it very definitely does. On an MTU 538 high speed diesel the
cylinder liner walls are a few millimeters thick. On a MAN KZ85 they
are inches thick. One cannot construct a cast iron - not steel Vince,
but grey cast iron - cylinder liner 12 foot tall by 3 foot in diameter
in mere millimeters of thickness. The casting process, for one, makes
it difficult.
>
>> For an example, pour boiling water into a chilled water glass. The
>> differential expansion of the inside, and the slowness of conduction to
>> the outside, can cause the glass to crack or shatter. If you raise the
>> temperature more gently, then you avoid the problem.
>
>1) Steel is tough, glass is not. steel is routinely heated cherry red,
>and plunged into cold water.
Grey cast iron is fragile and brittle. Forget steel. Get hold of an
engineering handbook and look up the moduluses of elasticity,
resilience, toughness and tensile strength for the two materials.
>I never saw a glass cannon or a glass pressure vessel (yes I know in
>theroy you can build both. glass is strong.
>2) your car runs with almost 1000 degrees f difference between the
>inside and the outside of the cylinder.
>again, I can see a couple of minutes for stability , no problem I dont
>see an hour
Vince your car engine is not even a tenth as big as the fuel pump on a
large marine diesel engine. You and Dr Ruth could comfortably stand
inside the cylinder liner of such an engine - wich may be three inches
thick.
>
>> The higher the power in a diesel, the more fuel you're burning and the
>> more heat you're generating, and the cylinder liner can only conduct so
>> much heat away: so, power has to be applied gently until the engine's
>> reached operating temperature.
>>
>the heat goes out in the exhaust. you only input heat to the wall at
>the difference between the temperature of the burning fuel and
>temperature the cylinder wall Burning more fuel in a bigger cylinder
>doesnt get you a higher temperature ( for example one burner on your
>stove may be bigger, but its no hotter) The wall thickness is a function
>of the pressure of the cylinder, not its size. Thermal inertia is a
>function of thickness. I agree you have more heat so you can transfer
>heat with a smaller drop in cylinder temperature so the engine heats up
>faster.
I hate to argue with a professor but this is rubbish. Burning more
fuel does not create more heat! Let me put it this way. If you burn
one pound of fuel every 1.2 seconds and now you increase that to 3.5
pounds in every 0.6 seconds (an increase from 50 to 100 rpm in a two
stroke diesel - 1000 hp per cylinder) in the same space you sure as
hell are dealing with the removal of a hell of a lot more heat.
>but the absolute abiilty of the engine to trasnfer the heat is the same
>for any engine made of the same steel. The wall will be of the same
>thickness. the size of the cylinder doesnt matter. If it takes 6
>minutes in a small engine it will take six minutes in a large engine.
Never actually been in an engine room have you Vince? I may be
ill-educated but I do have a chief's ticket. Maybe I have not
actively used it for 20 years and there have been some changes in
marine diesel technology that I have not kept up with but I have
probably seen more cracked cylinder liners than you have. At one
stage I worked as a marine superintendent of an engineering team which
was pulling two or three liners a day - which I had to inspect and
measure and give the yea or nay on (difficult decision when such a yea
or nay cost the equivalent of a couple of luxury cars a throw). And
there were plenty of cracked ones. When you have 2000 degree temps on
one side of a liner of a couple of inches thickness and water at 85
degrees on the other a change in that temperature differential of one
degree in a minute will crack you liner.
Here are some figures for your delectation: (Actually they are for a
MAN 52/55 medium speed diesel - I cannot find my KZ85 manual right
now).
Heat to be dissipated at full load:
Cooling water: 195 kcal/HP per hour
Exhaust gas : 545 kcal/HP/h
Oil: 60 kcal/HP/h
Radiation and other losses: 27 kcal/HP/hr
This is a relatively small engine with a 520 mm bore and 550 mm stroke
- 1000 HP per cylinder
>
>I fully accept that there mamy be a reason for the time stated, I
>simply dont see it yet.
Get hold of Southern's Marine Oil engines - it is well covered in
there IIRC.
Eugene Griessel
>According to Groener GERMAN WARSHIPS P 60 the Graf spee had 450 rpm 9
>cyl diesels
>and transmissions for the shafts. Janes also gives them 450 RPM
>
>I dont think you are talking aobut the same engines.
I am talking about a _type_ of engine. What does it say about the
physical size of those engines? They were large engines of relatively
low power to weight ratio. A reference I have here states: "Marine
diesels were then in their infancy, and those adopted for the
Deutschland class were heavy, space-consuming (especially in terms of
height) and prone to frequent breakdowns." The engines were still,
according to your reference, 750 HP per cylinder diesels.
Extrapolating backwards I would guesstimate a piston size of a good
14 - 16 inches, with a stoke slightly longer. How much HP did the
Fairbanks Morse on one of the Gato boats give? IIRC around 1600 HP
for the whole engine.
B F Lake
have made some assumptions<g> which will either work or be so outrageous
somebody will post the numbers we need. The problem is how far could AJAX
have chased ADMIRAL GRAF SPEE if she had taken off for the Canaries
instead of going into Montevideo. For simplicity, call it a 4,000 mile
run, and assume GS can do it at max speed of 26kts on remaining fuel. (can
go 20K miles at 15kts full so if it is 10K at 26 kts and she is 50% can go
5K and it is 4K- total WAG)
AJAX- assume since ARETHUSA used all 1,200 tons to go 12,000 miles at
economical speed (12kts??) which is 10 tons per 100miles and give the
heavier AJAX 12 tons per 100 thats 480 tons for 4K . So assume double at
double (24kts) and double again to go 30Kts (ok engineers what is the most
likely??) that is 960 tons at 24 and 1,920 at 30 and she only has 1,800
full, so if she still had 70% or 1,260 tons thats her out of gas after
2,625 miles (using 48tons/100miles) or ~44 degrees of lat so starting at
35S she gets to 9N, so she has to go in to Freetown to fuel so others have
to relieve her on task before that, presumably not such a problem. So GS
would have to knock out her pursuer(s) early to get clear and since she has
already got them engaged in the Battle, she needs to take the opportunity
to cripple them all right there before taking off??? OK so thats all wrong
whats a better version??
Regards,
Barry
Paul J. Adam
<vb...@umail.umd.edu> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> The problem is that differential heating of the cylinders and especially
>> the liners (the inside's hot, the outside's cold) produces differential
>> expansion and thus stresses the metal, and the larger the cylinder the
>> larger the stresses thus produced.
>
Actually, it's both, but the larger liners are - have to be -
considerably thicker.
>wall thickness does not increase with cylinder size.
Believe me, Vince, it does, for purely practical reasons (like handling
the cylinder liner, casting it, machining it...)
You can hone the inside of a six-inch-diameter cylinder liner pretty
easily. When the diameter's several _feet_, machining the inner surface
smooth (without distorting the liner in the process) becomes a more
challenging task.
>> For an example, pour boiling water into a chilled water glass. The
>> differential expansion of the inside, and the slowness of conduction to
>> the outside, can cause the glass to crack or shatter. If you raise the
>> temperature more gently, then you avoid the problem.
>
>1) Steel is tough, glass is not. steel is routinely heated cherry red,
>and plunged into cold water.
Unfortunately, the liners in question were made from grey cast iron,
which is notoriously prone to brittle fracture.
>2) your car runs with almost 1000 degrees f difference between the
>inside and the outside of the cylinder.
And the cylinder liners are millimetres thick at most, because the
cylinders are very small (it's a four-cylinder 1500cc diesel)
>> The higher the power in a diesel, the more fuel you're burning and the
>> more heat you're generating, and the cylinder liner can only conduct so
>> much heat away: so, power has to be applied gently until the engine's
>> reached operating temperature.
>>
>the heat goes out in the exhaust.
If that were true, opening the throttle would only make the exhaust get
hot, it wouldn't generate more power.
>you only input heat to the wall at
>the difference between the temperature of the burning fuel and
>temperature the cylinder wall Burning more fuel in a bigger cylinder
>doesnt get you a higher temperature
It does, else how is it generating higher mean effective pressure? Throw
in more fuel per charge, the air/fuel charge burns hotter, higher
pressure generated acts on piston face, thus producing more power.
>( for example one burner on your
>stove may be bigger, but its no hotter)
On the other hand, to go from a simmer to a fast boil - meaning,
transferring more heat from flame through pan to contents - you don't
change burners, you open the valve and increase the gas flow.
>The wall thickness is a function
>of the pressure of the cylinder, not its size.
In theory, yes: in practice wall thickness increases with size because
of manufacturing and handling constraints.
>I fully accept that there mamy be a reason for the time stated, I
>simply dont see it yet.
Hope the above helps.
James Tuttle
concludes:
> So GS would have to knock out her pursuer(s) early to get clear and
> since she has already got them engaged in the Battle, she needs to
> take the opportunity to cripple them all right there before taking
> off??? OK so thats all wrong whats a better version??
As I wrote earlier in this thread, it's been a while since I read about
GS in any detail. Seems to me the question is, what prompts Langsdorff
to scuttle?
The ship had sustained battle damage, and no substantial temporary
repairs could be effected at Montevideo. And because of the political
situation, the ship had to sortie. So then the questions are: Was the
ship still seaworthy? Was her steering intact, and could she maintain
sufficient speed for a long voyage? (Obviously, if she could only make
10 knots, it's all over.) Also, does she retain substantial fighting
capability?
If those questions are answered in the affirmative, then what force is
there to oppose her? EXETER had retired to Falklands for repair; AJAX
and ACHILLES remained on station; and I think CUMBERLAND had come up.
IIRC, GS mounted 11-in. guns, whereas CUMBERLAND probably had 8-in.
Absent a repeat of the original engagement, couldn't GS hold them off?
But what about RENOWN and (I think) RAMILLES? If Langsdorff believed
they had arrived off the Plate, that in itself could well justify the
decision to scuttle. In fact, as I recall, they were still quite some
distance away. So maybe it was a lack of intelligence about the
proximity of British units that led to the German decision which, BTW,
was dictated by Raeder, I believe.
B F Lake
>The ship had sustained battle damage, and no substantial temporary
repairs could be effected at Montevideo. And because of the political
situation<
worse happens while you cripple A and A and then take off hoping something
will work out.
Regards,
Barry
James Tuttle
>
> James Tuttle wrote:
> >The ship had sustained battle damage, and no substantial temporary
> >repairs could be effected at Montevideo. And because of the
>
> So why go in at all? Might as well keep the fight going and hope
> nothing worse happens while you cripple A and A and then take off
> hoping something will work out.
Well, the "political situation" seemed to develop after GS moored at
Montevideo. It wasn't known beforehand. I don't know what was going on
in Uruguayan politics, but we do know there were German sympathies
across the river in Argentina. I strongly suspect there was a flurry
of diplomatic activity as soon as GS entered the harbor.
Someone compared this with GOEBEN from the previous war. There are
indeed some similarities. GOEBEN took on coal at Taranto (Messina?) but
only had 24 hours because of Italian neutrality; later, when GOEBEN
approached the Dardanelles, it took some intensive diplomacy before she
was escorted through the minefield toward Constantinople.
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
>
> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <vb...@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >According to Groener GERMAN WARSHIPS P 60 the Graf spee had 450 rpm 9
> >cyl diesels
> >and transmissions for the shafts. Janes also gives them 450 RPM
> >
> >I dont think you are talking aobut the same engines.
>
> I am talking about a _type_ of engine. What does it say about the
> physical size of those engines? They were large engines of relatively
> low power to weight ratio. A reference I have here states: "Marine
> diesels were then in their infancy, and those adopted for the
> Deutschland class were heavy, space-consuming (especially in terms of
> height) and prone to frequent breakdowns." The engines were still,
> according to your reference, 750 HP per cylinder diesels.
> Extrapolating backwards I would guesstimate a piston size of a good
> 14 - 16 inches, with a stoke slightly longer. How much HP did the
> Fairbanks Morse on one of the Gato boats give? IIRC around 1600 HP
> for the whole engine.
I have posted separately the material I have on the much larger diesels
for the H class battleships.
Groner says the entire propulsion outfit was 22 kg per hp
Prinz eugen was 18.5 kg / hp for a turbine system
the system was efficient enought to be competitive with steam turbines.
Vince
Peter H. Granzeau
Griessel) wrote:
>I am talking about a _type_ of engine. What does it say about the
>physical size of those engines? They were large engines of relatively
>low power to weight ratio. A reference I have here states: "Marine
>diesels were then in their infancy, and those adopted for the
>Deutschland class were heavy, space-consuming (especially in terms of
>height) and prone to frequent breakdowns." The engines were still,
>according to your reference, 750 HP per cylinder diesels.
>Extrapolating backwards I would guesstimate a piston size of a good
>14 - 16 inches, with a stoke slightly longer. How much HP did the
>Fairbanks Morse on one of the Gato boats give? IIRC around 1600 HP
>for the whole engine.
I was on a Diesel powered ship (built 1941); two 3,000 HP Nordberg
Diesels. 9 cyl, and I don't know the size of the individual
cylinders, but maximum speed was approximately 225 rpm (reduced to 88
rpm of the shaft). Power/speed was, I believe, controlled by the
stroke of the fuel injectors, and was maximized at 40 mm (or 40 cm, I
don't know which). About 333 hp per cylinder.
Given the power you mention (750 hp per cylinder), GS probably had
well over 6,000 hp per engine. How many engines did she have?
Regards, PHG
(To reply by mail, send to my initials at the same site)
B F Lake
>Given the power you mention (750 hp per cylinder), GS probably had
well over 6,000 hp per engine. How many engines did she have?<
Compressorless double-acting two-stroke. Weight was a factor , says 550
tons saved by electrically welding hulls (first ships of such size welded)
and by using diesels. Total weight of whole plant at 48.5 lbs per bhp.
They had some vibration problems which either got fixed or reduced or not
(anyone know?) If not could have been a problem for taking accurate pot
shots at pursuers with X turret while going flat out??
Regards,
Barry
Eugene Griessel
>Eugene Griessel wrote:
>>
>> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <vb...@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >According to Groener GERMAN WARSHIPS P 60 the Graf spee had 450 rpm 9
>> >cyl diesels
>> >and transmissions for the shafts. Janes also gives them 450 RPM
>> >
>> >I dont think you are talking aobut the same engines.
>>
>> I am talking about a _type_ of engine. What does it say about the
>> physical size of those engines? They were large engines of relatively
>> low power to weight ratio. A reference I have here states: "Marine
>> diesels were then in their infancy, and those adopted for the
>> Deutschland class were heavy, space-consuming (especially in terms of
>> height) and prone to frequent breakdowns." The engines were still,
>> according to your reference, 750 HP per cylinder diesels.
>> Extrapolating backwards I would guesstimate a piston size of a good
>> 14 - 16 inches, with a stoke slightly longer. How much HP did the
>> Fairbanks Morse on one of the Gato boats give? IIRC around 1600 HP
>> for the whole engine.
>
>I have posted separately the material I have on the much larger diesels
>for the H class battleships.
>
>Groner says the entire propulsion outfit was 22 kg per hp
>Prinz eugen was 18.5 kg / hp for a turbine system
>
>the system was efficient enought to be competitive with steam turbines.
It was thermally more efficient than a steam plant - hence the reason
for its selection. The only way to achieve the range requirements at
that time. The power to weight ratio, in a big ship, was not all that
important. Besides the diesel plant should have been more compact
than a steam plant where volume to weight ratio is always fairly low
what with boilers, turbines, condensors and a whole paraphenalia of
auxiliary goodies. A rule of thumb says that a steam plant of that
era would have been lucky to achieve 15% thermal efficiency while
diesels were easily exceeding 30%. However, to join the ranks of
those who make outlandish comparisons, it is amusing to look at the
weight of only the engines - around 1100 tons from your power to
weight ratio - compared to a couple of modern gas turbines of the same
horsepower. With gearboxes and all I imagine one could get away with
a tenth of theat weight.
Merry Xmas all from a balmy, sunny 29degrees-in-the-shade Cape Town.
Paul J. Adam
writes
>As I wrote earlier in this thread, it's been a while since I read about
>GS in any detail. Seems to me the question is, what prompts Langsdorff
>to scuttle?
The conventional analysis is a desire to protect his crew, and to keep
his ship out of Allied hands. Going to sea and fighting means the
almost-certain loss of the ship, staying in Montevideo means internment,
but scuttling the ship protects her crew and denies her to the enemy.
>The ship had sustained battle damage, and no substantial temporary
>repairs could be effected at Montevideo. And because of the political
>situation, the ship had to sortie. So then the questions are: Was the
>ship still seaworthy? Was her steering intact, and could she maintain
>sufficient speed for a long voyage?
Probably not. The crucial damage was a hit to her bows (reducing her
seaworthiness) and to her fuel purification plant: damage to her galley
and bakery made the journey harder, too.
>Also, does she retain substantial fighting
>capability?
She was short of ammunition, especially HC rounds (what she needed to
fight cruisers, and Renown if Langsdorff believed the reports of her
imminent arrival). That seriously limited her ability to fight, since
she'd been unable to cripple three cruisers while undamaged.
>If those questions are answered in the affirmative, then what force is
>there to oppose her? EXETER had retired to Falklands for repair; AJAX
>and ACHILLES remained on station; and I think CUMBERLAND had come up.
Graf Spee had been unable to break contact from Ajax, Achilles and
Exeter; with battle damage and depleted ammunition, how can she break
away from a similar force? Especially if they confine their efforts to
shadowing, rather than fighting?
>IIRC, GS mounted 11-in. guns, whereas CUMBERLAND probably had 8-in.
>Absent a repeat of the original engagement, couldn't GS hold them off?
Not enough to break contact from three cruisers, all of which are faster
than she, especially given that GS is short of ammunition.
Drazen Kramaric
wrote:
>Well, the "political situation" seemed to develop after GS moored at
>Montevideo. It wasn't known beforehand. I don't know what was going on
>in Uruguayan politics, but we do know there were German sympathies
>across the river in Argentina. I strongly suspect there was a flurry
>of diplomatic activity as soon as GS entered the harbor.
Why Montevideo? Buenos Aires was just on the other side of the bay. If
Langsdorff knew about Aregntinian attitude towards axis powers, he
might have better luck with Aregntina.
Drax
Drazen Kramaric
<vb...@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
>Big difference between the foggy north atlantic and the clear sunny
>equatorial atlantic. Remember that Graf spee is useless unless it finds
>Merchant ships. every time it finds one you get a new sighting.
There is no sun during night hours. And it wasn't about chasing
merchants. It was about keeping the low profile while running to
Wilhelmshaven.
However, Graf Spee wasn't found due to merchant reports. Harwood
anticipated that Spee would sooner or later appear near La Plata.
Drax
Drazen Kramaric
wrote:
>The relative times to speed depend on how many boilers the cruisers had on
>line (it takes five minute to an hour to get a boiler going, depending on
>lots of arcane stuff). The cruisers were good for a bit over thirty knots
>flat out, or somewhere in the high teens for passages. At least one of them
>would almost certainly have had boilers for twenty-four or five knots on
>line. That gives GS a margin of two knots or so, if she could still make
>her design speed, which isn't very likely. That wold last for less than
>fifteen minutes, after which she'd be four or so knots slower (than all
>three of the British ships). IIRC, visibility was fairly good on the day so
>escaping the ships was iffy. Also didn't Exeter carry a float plane?
I've seen lots of technicalities about Diesel engines, but very little
about what could happen had Graf Spee sailed towards open Atlantic
instead of Montevideo.
Does anybod know for sure whether British cruisers had radars?
I'll suppose there were no radars in British squadron. So, Spee flees,
British follows. British maintain the visual staying outside the range
of spee's artillery.
The dark comes. Now what? I'm not much of a sailor, but I spent couple
of evenings on a boat and unless there is a moonlight there is an
absolute darkness in the sea. I was barely able to spot an island in
front of Dubrovnik on less than a half of mile.
How would British shadow Graf Spee after dark? How would they spot the
sudden change of course? Would they rely on general direction of
Germany and try to find Graf Spee in the morning using the higher
speed?
I'm not saying that spee would inevitably escape, but anything was
better than interment and scuttle in neutral harbor.
Drax
J & K Gilbert
>
> Does anybod know for sure whether British cruisers had radars?
I have a book that says this battle was the first time radar was used.
At least some of the British ships must have had radar. :)
> I'm not saying that spee would inevitably escape, but anything was
> better than interment and scuttle in neutral harbor.
I agree with you, they should have tried! The course he followed
prevented the British from being able to say THEY sunk his ship, but I
don't think they cared, as long as the ship was sunk. Scuttling the
ship saved the crew, but I do not think they made it back to German
service. (What did happen to them?) Far better would be an attempt to
get back home. Heck, the passenger liner Bremen was able to do that
with no military strength at all. It is worth a try. Besides, it is
good to give your enemy as many headaches as possible. At this early
stage in the war though, Germany was not ready even for small set backs.
Most of all, I think Lansdorff should have made sure to sink Exeter in
the earlier fight. He held back for fear of torpedo attack, and also
let the smaller cruisers divert his attention just when he would find
Exeter's range. But if he would have sunk a cruiser, then the potential
loss of his own ship at least would look not so bad for the propaganda
boys. Losing a ship on each side sounds better than just losing on your
side!
The Germans ignored the most basic rule - "Don't give up the ship!"
John Gilbert
B F Lake
>I have a book that says this battle was the first time radar was used.
At least some of the British ships must have had radar. :)<
look at it later <g>
Barry
TMOliver
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:11:59 -0800, "Prof. Vincent Brannigan"
> <vb...@umail.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >Big difference between the foggy north atlantic and the clear sunny
> >equatorial atlantic. Remember that Graf spee is useless unless it finds
> >Merchant ships. every time it finds one you get a new sighting.
>
> There is no sun during night hours. And it wasn't about chasing
> merchants. It was about keeping the low profile while running to
> Wilhelmshaven.
The British had a substantial advantage after locating
GS. They knew (within reasonable margin) her fuel state
and could prevent any rendezvous with an oiler, thus
limiting her actions to an almost direct return to the
Nordzee (with few choices of routeing). Other than on
moonless nights (and even during full cloud conditions),
visual tracking at night in the South Atlantic is not
difficult. After all, given GS's desire to try to remain
invisible, she wouldn't fire at ships shadowing too
closely, and "doubling back", while potentially confusing
to the British, would only allow time for more ships to
enter the chase. GS was constructively a "dead duck"
from the moment she encounters three cruisers in company
(for it was likely that competition, pride and tradition
would have required all three to engage in successive
self-immolation should such have been required to stop or
delay GS).
>
> However, Graf Spee wasn't found due to merchant reports. Harwood
> anticipated that Spee would sooner or later appear near La Plata.
>
Hungry cats tend to gather near concentrations of mice.
Much of the ocean is empty of maritime trade which tends
to stick to established routes (and ports/estuaries which
are major sources of supply or market).
Not anxious to become involved in US waters (or the
Caribbean, a US lake) in a possible confrontation with US
vessels, civilian or military, the Plate represented to
optimum location to encounter large numbers of potential
captures/sinkings.
--
TMOliver (who has seen the elephant)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gentlemen, charge your glasses for a toast to the ship!
May she and all of those who sail in her
Find fair winds and following seas,
And when her bell has last struck eight on time,
Come to safe moorings in the Isles of the Blest,
Secure in the regard of grateful nation and its
citizenry...
Steven Vincent
>
> After a fuel calculation based on some assumptions, Barry Lake
> concludes:
>
> > So GS would have to knock out her pursuer(s) early to get clear and
> > since she has already got them engaged in the Battle, she needs to
> > take the opportunity to cripple them all right there before taking
> > off??? OK so thats all wrong whats a better version??
>
> GS in any detail. Seems to me the question is, what prompts Langsdorff
> to scuttle?
>
> repairs could be effected at Montevideo. And because of the political
> situation, the ship had to sortie. So then the questions are: Was the
> ship still seaworthy?
Yes otherwise she could stay in Montevideo - Repairs to ensure
seaworthiness
were allowed and part of the reason that the GS could go into a neutral
port in the first place.
> Was her steering intact, and could she maintain sufficient speed for a long
>voyage? (Obviously, if she could only make 10 knots, it's all over.)
This was where the damage was critical - opinions do differ but the
general
answer was that she could no longer maintain sufficient speed over a
long
voyage while the definition of "sufficient" differs wildly.
>Also, does she retain substantial fighting capability?
Yes but at full capacity she has just lost an equivalent fight.
>
> If those questions are answered in the affirmative, then what force is
> there to oppose her? EXETER had retired to Falklands for repair; AJAX
> and ACHILLES remained on station; and I think CUMBERLAND had come up.
>
> IIRC, GS mounted 11-in. guns, whereas CUMBERLAND probably had 8-in.
> Absent a repeat of the original engagement, couldn't GS hold them off?
Cumberland is 8*8 vs Exeters 6*8 - enough to compensate for the harm
done
to the two 6" Cruisers so far. So RN strength has been restored but the
GS's fighting capacity is reduced and repairs to fighting equipment in
a neutral harbour are not allowed. (Don't go into enforcement.)
>
> But what about RENOWN and (I think) RAMILLES? If Langsdorff believed
> they had arrived off the Plate, that in itself could well justify the
> decision to scuttle. In fact, as I recall, they were still quite some
> distance away. So maybe it was a lack of intelligence about the
> proximity of British units that led to the German decision which, BTW,
> was dictated by Raeder, I believe.
This is what became the British Stratergy.
1) Pin the GS in Montevideo by sailing Allied merchant ships and
invoking the
24 hour rule. This gave time for other RN warships to arrive but
Eventually
ran out of merchant ships before this had occurred.
2) Carry out a dis-information campaign to convince the Germans that the
blockading force was bigger than it was.
The German embassy was fooled by the later which lead to Raeder's order
to scuttle. At the time the three cruisers were all that were in
position.
Still one of the R class Battle Cruisers was now close enough to catch a
weakened GS as long as at least one of the Cruisers could track her.
(The
BC had refuelled in the Azores rather than arrive on station with empty
bunkers).
--
----------------------------------------------- C i s c o S y s t e m
s -
Steven Vincent | |
mailto:ste...@cisco.com |||
|||
Voice/FAX: +44 181 756 8162 |||||
|||||
-----------------------------------------------
..:|||||||:...:|||||||:.. -
rca...@uswest.net
>In the absence of engineers to tell us the fuel consumption figures etc, I
>have made some assumptions<g> which will either work or be so outrageous
>somebody will post the numbers we need. The problem is how far could AJAX
>have chased ADMIRAL GRAF SPEE if she had taken off for the Canaries
>instead of going into Montevideo. For simplicity, call it a 4,000 mile
>run, and assume GS can do it at max speed of 26kts on remaining fuel. (can
>go 20K miles at 15kts full so if it is 10K at 26 kts and she is 50% can go
>5K and it is 4K- total WAG)
>AJAX- assume since ARETHUSA used all 1,200 tons to go 12,000 miles at
>economical speed (12kts??) which is 10 tons per 100miles and give the
>heavier AJAX 12 tons per 100 thats 480 tons for 4K . So assume double at
>double (24kts) and double again to go 30Kts (ok engineers what is the most
>likely??) that is 960 tons at 24 and 1,920 at 30 and she only has 1,800
>full, so if she still had 70% or 1,260 tons thats her out of gas after
>2,625 miles (using 48tons/100miles) or ~44 degrees of lat so starting at
>35S she gets to 9N, so she has to go in to Freetown to fuel so others have
>to relieve her on task before that, presumably not such a problem. So GS
>would have to knock out her pursuer(s) early to get clear and since she has
>already got them engaged in the Battle, she needs to take the opportunity
>to cripple them all right there before taking off??? OK so thats all wrong
>whats a better version??
>Regards,
>Barry
Power required and thus fuel flow per hour is proportional to the cube
of the speed, and thus mileage is inversely proportional to
the square of speed. This applies to overcoming drag in a viscous
medium, water and air, for ships, oil and air for a crankshaft, air
only for airplanes, and doesn't really apply to trains, planes at low
enough speed, where the lift required to produce lift is very
inportant, nor to ships near hull speed. Planing hulls, of course
have not hull speed, not while on plane. Slow ships and fast
planes, viscous drag dominates. So do the math. About 1/3
the range for the Spee, and if nobody posts at least one set of
figures giving both speed and range, no calculations are possible.
For those Brit steamers. I mislaid my 12 inch globe, so I can't check
Plate to Carnary distance, to within say, 100 miles. Don't ask why I
can't find the globe. Just don't ask. I have pre WWII diesel engine
design engineering texts, appropriate to the period of the Spee, and I
intend to look over the thread. and the books, for info worth posting.
There are some good guesses based on significant ammounts of real
life experience, and true expertise, posted to this discussion, but I
may have facts to replace some of the educated guesswork: we shall
see.
Casady