Talk:HMS Kent (1901)

message: Hi again,  I arrived here via Random article → List of postage stamps#Falkland Islands → HMS Glasgow error.
"Short on coal, her crew threw in everything burnable..." (Massie pp. 267, 277). I imagine that this is what Massie actually wrote, or something like it: but obviously the entire crew was not involved, but only the stokers and their chief (see also Stokers - the lowest of the low?' A Social History of Royal Navy Stokers 1850–1950.) I wondered what else combustible they might have thrown into the furnaces. Navigational charts? The wardroom furniture? Books from the Captain's cabin? And how long would it all have lasted at full steam? A few hundred yards? (Only joking).
I would suggest that although "everything burnable" makes the account more dramatic, fuel oil seems to be the only answer, unless you can suggest some other suitable substance likely to be carried on board in quantities large enough to make any difference at all: otherwise the phrase appears to make little sense. Hope you are well. >MinorProphet (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Monmouth-class cruisers didn't carry any fuel oil. Kent was going for top speed, not trying to stretch her range.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for clearing that up. "Everything burnable" suggests something else other than coal. Perhaps it's a just a literary simile, but it threw me. A positive review of Massie's book mentions "...a purple-passage tendency that is grating to the puritanical British reader..." Does the phrase in question then mean something more like "Although short on fuel, the crew continued to shovel coal to maintain speed..."?  The last sentence of the section, "Kent was critically short of coal and had to steam slowly enough..." makes it fairly clear that coal was the only thing burnable. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit more complicated than that. Wooden stuff like furniture may have been treated with shellac, lacquer or stains that may have had more energy than ordinary coal and would have useful in trying to maximize heat and thus steam output and speed during the pursuit. But it would have been all but irrelevant when trying to get back to Port Stanley afterwards because of the very steep curve relationship between power and speed through water. It might take a ship 2000 hp to make 5 knots, but to double that speed could require 5 times the horsepower, to pull numbers out of my fundament, so heading home at slow speed coal consumption would be far, far less than that required at full speed. I'd have to look at the ship's log during and after the engagement to see what was officially reported about fuel consumption and speed, but Massey might have been relying on the crew's observations, which are almost always more impressionistic than historical.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but I was pretty close. I had tried to imagine them lounging around on packing cases or old sea chests, but failed. Looking further down the page they looks like they burned more stuff in the hunt for the Dresden in Feb. '15: eg "Cutters mast: total 2 in number, Capstan bars: total 9 in number, Lower boom: total 2 in number, Mast of sailing launch: total 1 in number,  Timber and sorts: total sorts, Mast of sailing launch: total 1 in number." At the top of the page in October 1914, "Establishment of Ship’s Company:" there were 87 marines embarked, giving a total of 763 on board. I find it interesting that the 'Engine-room Establishment' numbered 256, as against 296 seamen. Also, the engines were more specifically 'inverted triple expansion with natural draught' But I imagine this is primary source material and not usable. :>MinorProphet (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Oh, I'd say it's useable as it's relating simple, uncontroversial facts. But it's not encyclopedic because it's excessive detail. None of the standard reference books covering Kent or the battle mention this level of detail, so it's really too much for us.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Battle of the Falklands' section