Naval History Forums

Thanks Mr.Nilsson, I ignored that.

hans

Hello Mr. Nilsson, when you say: "Based on the intercepted shadowings reports, Group West calculated a crossing of the 60° latitude line at approximately 2 p.m. on May 24th. Group West then suggested to Group North at 9:30 a.m. a transfer of command at 12 p.m. Group North communicated this to t...

My best wishes for this Chistmas time to everybody here !

hans

Hello Mr. McWilliams, Baron von Mullenheim-Rechberg and J. Brennecke in their books say that Group North would have already passed control of operation to Group West exactly at 12 on May 24, that look anyway more or less in line with map posted by Mr. Malara or even more to North. It looks like it w...

Thank you Mr. Nilsson!
hans

Hello Mr. Nilsson, while I fully agree with you re. Bismarck seagoing qualities, I would just ask why you say that A turret rangefinder was never installed: in all photos, I see its hood in place on A turret (like in all other turrets) until winter 1940. Rangefinder hood was removed from A turret in...

Hello all, no comment would be needed to above post. KGV Gunnery Control.jpg KGV Enclosure N.3_Section II_3.jpg Willingness to read and understand what is written in KGV GAR should be enough to judge whether there were problems or not with 284 personnel training (interpretation of echoes) and cooper...

Hi Byron, 1943 284M was clearly superior to 1941 284. Your point about early war radar "art" is very interesting and may explain problems on board KGV on May 27, despite a well tuned radar. Germans too had severe shortages of personnel training in usage of radar equipment. I feel British g...

Hi Byron, thanks again for your new info and reference ! I find a sentence from G. Mason quite interesting. He obviously analysed KGV GAR (as we are doing here; https://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=91787#p91787 and in earlier posts) to summarize what happened during the engagement on May ...

Hi Byron, I agree: it looks like this is an a.a. aid only. I'm convinced that, in 1941, an 'average' 284 was limited to anti-ship gunnery usable range of 18.000-20.000 yards, as per precious 'Handbook' you kindly posted here (https://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=91770#p91770). Fact that, ...

Hi Byron, thanks again for corrections to my wrong understanding, for explanations and additional info on 284 capabilities in 1941. It looks clear that in 1941 284 was able to receive echoes from distant ships (even up to 28.000 yards) but that "usable" ranging was possible only below 18.0...

Hi Byron, thanks a lot, a most interesting document, confirming ranging tolerance of +/-150 yards for Type 284 vs +/- 40 meters of German FuMO radars in 1941. I wasn't aware that 284 had two panels: "ranging" scope and "warning" scope. I had always thought to 284 as dedicated gun...

Hi Frank, thanks this "league" is very interesting. I don't want to create problems or workload, but I have to observe that to call a draw with 20% difference is a bit too much. I can understand that a draw is called when <10% or possibly just 5%, but I feel that a 20% superiority is quite...

Hi Frank, thanks for re-playing BS vs PoW match with new "rules". However, when doubting whether "calibration "of radar vs optical ranging could have changed other results, I was thinking more to ships with poor or no radar at all (Littorio and Richelieu) vs ships with fairly goo...

Hi Frank,
I feel this will be more fair and result of last "match" seem to me more reflecting real strength of ships.

I wonder whether this can change any of the previous results too...

hans