"How often did ships use maximum speed?" Topic

During the 2 world wars, did ships automatically go to their flank speed during battle? It seems that most gamers automatically use the maximum listed ship's speed. It this realistic?
My thought would be that a division of ships in battle would steam at a lower speed than maximum thus allowing any of them to remain in formation should they take some damage affecting their propulsion machinery; especially during the night battles around guadalcanal.
Can anyone point me to the various navy's procedures in this matter? Or can they relate from any references what speed specific ships maintained while in a battle?

thanks!
Glen

I was reading Richard Hough's "The Great War at Sea 1914-1918" and he discussed how coal fired ships could not stay at maximum speed indefinitely because the stokers would become exhausted.

Mark

From my experience RN ships very rarely use maximum or full speed. Officially it means maximum speed ignoring possible damage to machinery. few captain's would be willing to chance being disabled unnecessarily in the precence of enemy forces.
Normally the speed of speed of a formation will be less than the maximum of the slowest ship. This allows ships to increase speed if they are dropping back. Remember many factors affect a ships speed: sea state, loading, time since last docking etc. This makes it very difficult to achieve a precise speed through the water. Also, as Mark says a coal fired ship depends on how fast the stokers can feed the boilers.
Note that for many ships the maximum achievable speed was a lot less than the officially quoted maximum. For instance the maximum speed for most British destroyers is often given as 35 or 36 knots. In wartime conditions they would lucky to attain 32 in a moderate seaway.

Don't forget that the power required to achieve a certain speed is roughly proportional to the square of the speed, so travelling at max chat uses far more fuel than travelling at cruising speed.

Correct. Fuel consumption is a geometric progression as speed increases, not a mathematical progression.

There is also the issue of maneuvering in a formation, rather than singly. It is very unlikely that any ship in a fleet line with surounding escorts is going to be doing flank speed, or even full speed, for reasons of keeping station, and also allowing for maneuver and reaction.

Would the ship not be more easily manoeuvred the faster she goes?

Taking for example the cruisers and destroyers in the various actions around guadalcanal in '42-43: Would those actions probably have been fought at say 2/3's (66%) listed max. speed (22-24 kts)? What about the BB's or BC's at Jutland?

"31 Knot Burke" got that nickname due to the speed his DD division steamed (i.e. ~88% max spd), but not sure if it was just to get to the designated interception point or if it was maintained while in battle.

(I understand the fuel usage required for speed increases and the principle that just a few boilers (relatively speaking) are needed for cruise speed and that the rest are needed to meet the power to get those last few knots between high and max speed, and to some extent the increased risk of machinery breakdown at speed. Just trying to get a handle on "battle" speeds typically used for various ships during both the various WW1 and WW2 battles.)

thanks

I was on an old steam DDG in the '80's, and we crossed the Atlantic at 15 knots.

Excerpt from the Grand Fleet Battle Orders (~ May 1916)
… the speed of a column in the line of battle should be less than the maximum, in order to facilitate station keeping, reduce smoke, and leave something in hand for emergency. At medium speeds gunlaying is easier … [page 16]

The standard battle speed for US ships in the carrier battles off Guadalcanal was 28 knts, giving a slight margin for emergencies. That was max speed for the new BBs except for the Iowa class.

Maximum speed reminds me of the "Yellow Stain Blues".

Also high speed turnstend to heel the ships over making them not exactly useful gun platforms.

Turbine engines could get to and hold much closer to top speed than the earlier reciprocating engines, which would shake themselves apart if held at anything approaching top speed for any length of time.

Along with all the mentioned problems, high speed could cause other problems. In the case of the Fletcher class, flank speed caused the stern to "dig in" with a pronounced stern wave with a high pitched vibration that could be felt throughout the ship. Played hob with fire control, radar and any other vibration sensitive systems.

"I'd say that in a game like GQ3.3 where the hull blocks are related to max speed, don't use the last block without a shooting penalty. In other rules, I'd knock off 10-20% of the max speed except in emergency situations and then it should affect all other ship operations."

That is a very good idea for a advanced rule for all tactical naval games (mind if I steal it? LOL!).

And you're so right about operational impacts on ship performance. The PT squadrons operating in the SW Pacific were particularly affected. After only a few months in theater, it wasn't unusual for your average PT boat to have its top cut to 2/3s or 1/2 of its book speed (due to worn engines, very basic maintenance and massive amounts of sea growth on its hull). The same applies to their bigger brethren, as well.

"31 Knot Burke" got that nickname due to the speed his DD division steamed (i.e. ~88% max spd), but not sure if it was just to get to the designated interception point or if it was maintained while in battle.

That was the maximum speed a couple of his damaged ships could maintain with cross-connected steam plants.

Even my nuclear-powered sub didn't spend a lot of time at full speed. Mostly for noise, in my case.

Would the ship not be more easily manoeuvred the faster she goes?

Not really. You get a whole lot more heel at high speed as the ship leans into the turn.

Talking to my Dad a few years a go on his ships speed a old V&W .Under long range gun fire from a heavy Germen unit
( he did say the name of the German ship but its gone out of my head )The skipper put the pedal to the metal and managed to get out of range told the crew they had exceeded there top speed that the ship could do. Ship nearly fell a part but they live to tell the tail.

Fuel consumption is not purely related to speed.

Fuel consumption per nautical mile can vary with different speeds let alone different ships.

frigates , minesweepers and other escorts are better short and fat for more fuel efficency at slower speeds. long thin ships do not have good duration at slow speeds as they use up even more fuel per hour than they do at faster speeds less than the optimal cruise. this is why despite having large numbers of destoyers, the allies built so many specific short stubby escorts that were slow enough to stay with the convoys the full trip rather than doing a mad dash to Iceland for a top up and return.

Talking to my Dad a few years a go on his ships speed a old V&W .Under long range gun fire from a heavy Germen unit
( he did say the name of the German ship but its gone out of my head )The skipper put the pedal to the metal and managed to get out of range told the crew they had exceeded there top speed that the ship could do. Ship nearly fell a part but they live to tell the tail.

Sounds about right.

When my sub was at ahead flank (all hail nuclear power and steam turbines!), we picked up a funny wobble. The whole ship was shaking. You'd better believe extended operations at high speed will cause damage. Machines aren't built to run at tens of thousands of horsepower for an extended period.

Generally, the higher the speed the longer it takes to respond to the helm. There are other factors involved, but "battle speed", including that of carrier groups and their escorts was less than flank speed so as to make the ships more nimble. I read somewhere that a battleship at speed took minutes rather than seconds to respond to the helm.

In WW1 German ships could not maintain high speed long. German coal was notoriously bad. At Jutland the grates rotted out in the Seydlitz due to sustained steaming.

There is a difference between Flank and Full speed. Flank is safety valves tied down and running everything maxed out in order to get out of Dodge. Not recommended for extended periods. Full is a few knots (3-5?)less and, in theory, the fastest sustained speed a ship can maintain. Battle speed is usually related to the slowest top speed of a group of ships.

I've been on a 19 knot ship and a 32 knot ship. Full speed on the 19 knot ship wasn't nearly as big a deal. The point is that I'd expect a line of WW1 battleships to go 20 knots during a battle while I wouldn't expect a line of WW2 ships to go 32 knots during a battle unless there was a crisis. Hope that made sense?

Ships normally fought in formations and formation speed was usually kept about 2-3 kts less than "maximum" speed of slowest ship in order to allow for positional adjustments and evasive maneuver by individual ships, etc.

Edit – Already covered. Should have read the complete thread.

B