Q : BB62 - 1943 Displacement

[Naess]

Hi everyone,

On my trip to USA last year I visited the battleshipmuseum BB62 New Jersey
in Camden NJ were I got a museum-newspaper from the souvenirshop. In the
paper there is a section with the ship's data during its commisions from
1943 to 1983 and something regarding the ships 1943 displacement caught my
attention :

1943 displacement :
Light ship : 43,944 tons
Optimum battle : 45,649 tons
Full load : 57,216 tons
Emergency load : 60,252 tons

My question is about the Emergency load which is only additionel 3 tons to
Full load. I'm curious as to what conditions creates an emergency load and
so far my only guess has been extra AA-ammo for pre-invasion actions in the
Pacific, but I'm not sure and hope someone can clarify this to me.

Thank you!
--
Best Regards
Kevin Naess
Elsinore - Denmark
Na...@city.dk

[William Hamblen]

The biggest variable weight is the amount of fuel. Emergency full load
would have every tank filled full of oil. The figure quoted for optimum
battle condition is too light. It should be about 55,000 tons.

Bud

[Naess]

> The biggest variable weight is the amount of fuel. Emergency full load
> would have every tank filled full of oil. The figure quoted for optimum
> battle condition is too light. It should be about 55,000 tons.
> Bud

The optimum load 45,649 tons is equal to 56,542 metric tons.

Thanks for your answer!

Regards
Kevin Naess

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 27/11/2011 13:44, Naess ha scritto:
>> The biggest variable weight is the amount of fuel. Emergency full load
>> would have every tank filled full of oil. The figure quoted for optimum
>> battle condition is too light. It should be about 55,000 tons.
>> Bud
>
> The optimum load 45,649 tons is equal to 56,542 metric tons.

*ahem*

> pigi@Sardegna:~$ bc
> bc 1.06.95
> Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
> For details type `warranty'.
> 45649*1.016
> 46379.384
> quit
> pigi@Sardegna:~$

I fear that you have confused ideas on metric and imperial weights....

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Richard Casady]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:32:21 +0100, "dott.Piergiorgio"
<chied...@ask.me> wrote:

>Il 27/11/2011 13:44, Naess ha scritto:
>>> The biggest variable weight is the amount of fuel. Emergency full load
>>> would have every tank filled full of oil. The figure quoted for optimum
>>> battle condition is too light. It should be about 55,000 tons.
>>> Bud
>>
>> The optimum load 45,649 tons is equal to 56,542 metric tons.
>
>*ahem*

>I fear that you have confused ideas on metric and imperial weights....

You think the 4.6 pound difference between an Imperial ton and a
metric ton is significant?

Casady

[Richard Casady]

Posted before coffee. Make that a 35 pound difference. Still
negligible.

Casady

[dott.Piergiorgio]

pls read better the OP's singular conversion:

>>>> The optimum load 45,649 tons is equal to 56,542 metric tons.

pls drink more coffee..... ;)

[David E. Powell]

On Nov 27, 5:44 am, "Naess" <Inva...@dont.use> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> On my trip to USA last year I visited the battleshipmuseum BB62 New Jersey
> in Camden NJ were I got a museum-newspaper from the souvenirshop. In the
> paper there is a section with the ship's data during its commisions from
> 1943 to 1983 and something regarding the ships 1943 displacement caught my
> attention  :
>
> 1943 displacement :
> Light ship : 43,944 tons
> Optimum battle : 45,649 tons
> Full load : 57,216 tons
> Emergency load : 60,252 tons
>
> My question is about the Emergency load which is only additionel 3 tons to
> Full load.

It looks more like about 3,000 tons. (Nitpick, I know.)

I'm curious as to what conditions creates an emergency load and
> so far my only guess has been extra AA-ammo for pre-invasion actions in the
> Pacific, but I'm not sure and hope someone can clarify this to me.

It could have been just that. The battleships of WW2 had a lot of aa
guns by 1944-45, and probably would have had a lot of ammo stowed if
they expected heavy, sustained action from air attack.

They may have figured they would have to keep maneuvering for a long
time, stay on station, and not be able to resupply from ammunition
ships under such conditions. Under air attack or later Kamikaze
attack, they threw out a heavy volume of fire and often sustained it
for some time. The Japanese often sent planes in sustained waves over
very long periods of time.

[Ray O'Hara]

"Naess" <Inv...@dont.use> wrote in message
news:4ed2149b$0$282$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

I think you meant 3000 tons more.

[Ray O'Hara]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:490cb771-581e-4138...@da3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

as designed the USS Massachusetts BB59 had a crew of 1100 by 1944 it had
grown to 2300, the extram crew were all for the extra AA fit.

[Peter Granzeau]

I would assume tonnage given is in US short tons. A short ton is
approximately .9072 of a metric tonne. Thus 45,649 x .9072 would give
41,413 metric tonnes.

I would guess the Iowa at 56,532 metric tonnes displacement would have
her decks nearly awash.

[William Hamblen]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:38:00 -0500, Peter Granzeau <pgra...@cox.net>
wrote:

>I would assume tonnage given is in US short tons. A short ton is
>approximately .9072 of a metric tonne. Thus 45,649 x .9072 would give
>41,413 metric tonnes.

The tons are 2,240 pound tons. 1,016 kilos.

Bud

[Mark Sieving]

On Nov 27, 8:38 pm, Peter Granzeau <pgranz...@cox.net> wrote:

As others have noted, the tonnage would be in long tons, 2,240 lbs.
According to FTP 218 "War Service Fuel Consumption of U.S. Naval
Surface Vessels", New Jersey's average displacement in 1943 - 1944 was
55,900 tons. Iowa's average displacement was 57,100 tons.

[Naess]

> I think you meant 3000 tons more.

Yes I did, I can't believe I made such a stupid type-mistake, sorry bout
that! :-(

To all others :
To be honest I'm not really into U.S. measure standards, I'm from Denmark
and all I know is DK-standards which are metric. I quoted the ship's data
from the Battleship-newspaper and it says :
Optimum Battle : 45,649 tons (56,542 m.t.)
- So I just assumed the "m.t." meant metric tons.

Anyways, I really don't care about which weight is right. I just wanted to
know what Emergency load meant, so thank you William Hamblen and David E.
Powell for your feedback on the subject.

Best regards
Kevin Naess

[William Hamblen]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:55:11 +0100, "Naess" <Inv...@dont.use> wrote:

>To be honest I'm not really into U.S. measure standards, I'm from Denmark
>and all I know is DK-standards which are metric. I quoted the ship's data
>from the Battleship-newspaper and it says :
>Optimum Battle : 45,649 tons (56,542 m.t.)
>- So I just assumed the "m.t." meant metric tons.

The 45,649 figure is an obvious typo. Change the 4 to a 5. 55,649
tons equals 56,542 tonnes.

Bud

[David E. Powell]

No problem, totally cool and glad to have you here :)

I am certain that your English is far better than my Danish! :)

[Guy]

Optimum Battle Displacement (for a battleship) is basically about
sinkage, The heavier the load, the further the armour belt is
submerged.
Too light and the ship is vulnerable to a shell diving under the belt
into the vitals, too heavy and the ship is in danger of capsize due to
flooding above the belt(and deck) a classic example of this being at
Tsushima.

Guy

[skelto...@gmail.com]

IN answer to the original question, the extra 3000 tons probably
represents the effect of filling the air and water voids in the
protection system with fuel oil.

[Guy]

On Dec 1, 5:34 pm, "skelt...@cogeco.ca" <skelton.pe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> protection system with fuel oil.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are probably correct Peter, but I think the OPs original
sugesstion about extra AA equipment/crews is also relavent.
I suspect that the Emergency Load is not an absolute, it depends where
the extra tonnage goes.
Fuel in the double bottom will increase sinkage and metacentric
height, creating a stable vessel (but probably a poor gun platform)
whereas Increasing light AA (and their crews, firecontrol etc) will
decrease GM creating a more unstable vessel (but (temporarily;-) a
better gun platform)

Possibly the interesting thing is how different navies responded to
different treaty limits/announcements

The Iowas where 45,000 ton ships but Optimum Battle displacement was
nearly 10,000 tons more, ie, like you say, add in extra fuel, water
protection etc and displacement goes up
which implies that at 45,00 tons they would not have been very safe.

Guy

[skelto...@gmail.com]

Emergency would include filling the air voids with oil, something that
would make the ship much less resistant to underwater explosions.
Incidentally, where did the 56 KT for optimum battle come from? WHat I
have here shows 45 KT give or take

[Guy]

On Dec 2, 3:23 pm, "skelt...@cogeco.ca" <skelton.pe...@gmail.com>

>scussion fu > Guy
>rther up the threAD

> Emergency would include filling the air voids with oil, something that
> would make the ship much less resistant to underwater explosions.
> Incidentally, where did the 56 KT for optimum battle come from? WHat I

> have here shows 45 KT give or take- Hide quoted text -
> n

> - Show quoted text -

My misread - of a discussion of further up the thread

Guy

[Guy]

On Dec 2, 3:23 pm, "skelt...@cogeco.ca" <skelton.pe...@gmail.com>

> have here shows 45 KT give or take- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You know what Peter, I cant be assed, I try to have a civiised
converstaion and all i get is people trying to fight
good ridance