Bismarck firing procedures at DS

[Cag]

Hi All,

Just a quick post to pose a few questions.

Firstly I am sorry that Herr Nilsson has withdrawn from the discussion, his calm thoughtful approach is a lesson to us all. Secondly I am sure that Antonio has the best of intentions and motives for his participation, the cover up theory seems to cause a lot of problems in every subject it seeps its way into. Now the questions!

According to Jasper Prinz Eugen opened fire at 202 HM not 197 as in the map. The fall of shot was not ascribable to PG due to technical problems and a further salvo was ordered 'without range correction'. These were observed as well as a hit on Hood, would this then still have been at 202HM?

If we can agree that the Prinz Eugen battle map is perhaps in error, without any malice of forethought on the German side, why do we have to imply it when we discuss the Pinchin battle map?

Does this not show that despite the cover up theory being put to one side, it is still underlying in every post?

The local control salvos still puzzle me, are we suggesting that the Marines in Y turret 'lost it' in the midst of battle?

There were two guns missing in Y turret from salvos 13 and 14, and the Marines continued to fire in their salvo positions. Then on turning away they totally disregard the salvo firing procedure that thay had stuck to for the previous six salvos and fired both Y1 and Y4 together.

They then have to reload both of these guns, meaning the only turret that was in action was in fact out of action, in the next salvo they have two guns available to fire but decide to only fire one, say for arguments sake Y4. Then in salvo 21 when Y3 gun is back in action again they only fire one gun, either Y1 or Y3 whilst once again actually having two available. If there was an inquiry it should have been into the loss of common sense in Y turret!

Is it not feasable that Y turret did not 'lose it' and continued to fire in salvos, as they had been doing previously, salvo 19 Y1 fires, salvo 20 Y4 fires, salvo 21 Y1 and the back in action Y3 fires? Could we have those images in the right place but in the wrong order?

These are just questions and I have no agenda!
Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Cag wrote: "According to Jasper Prinz Eugen opened fire at 202 HM not 197 as in the map. The fall of shot was not ascribable to PG due to technical problems and a further salvo was ordered 'without range correction'. These were observed as well as a hit on Hood, would this then still have been at 202HM?"

Hi Mr. Cag,
I think 197 HM was referred to "fire for effect" and not to "open fire" in the map you mention.
The first hit on board Hood, according to witnesses, is the one that started the large fire, therefore the one Jasper attributed to the "short" salvo in the ranging ladder fired after the 2 full salvos. No hit is mentioned from British side during the first full salvos AFAIK.

you wrote: "Is it not feasable that Y turret did not 'lose it' and continued to fire in salvos, as they had been doing previously, salvo 19 Y1 fires, salvo 20 Y4 fires, salvo 21 Y1 and the back in action Y3 fires? Could we have those images in the right place but in the wrong order?"

I think we already discussed this aspect, and, while your proposed sequence is possible, I think that Y turret, when in local control, just fired what was loaded and ready, as soon as the guns were available, disregarding the "usual" salvo sequence, but I can be wrong, not being an expert of firing procedures in the RN. Duncan can possibly confirm this.
This would better comply with the fact that salvo 19 (2 shells) was very short, as per photo NH69731, while both salvo 20 and 21 (1 shell each) were just short (20) and just over (21) as per PG film, accounting for the range correction.

Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Hi All,

Thanks Alberto, I was just using my limited Deutsche Sprachtkenntnisse. Feuer eroeffnet i thought meant fire opened but I could be wrong! A long while ago I had a kind beautiful German Girlfriend from Stuttgart and she improved my German quite a bit.

I remember having the local control salvo conversation it just seems odd that Royal Marines would divert from an ordered salvo firing procedure my only thought is that we have the film and a photo, the film is sequential but the photo is not, I don't wish to doubt I'm just asking if a different order is feasable.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Cag wrote: "I was just using my limited Deutsche Sprachtkenntnisse. Feuer eroeffnet i thought meant fire opened "

Hi Mr.Cag,
you are right and I'm wrong. My German knowledge is just zero and I was unable to even read it correctly.
It is as you say, but then I wonder why this annotation is put without a time reference (it looked to me to be referred to 5:57 and that's why I mis-translated into "fire for effect").......

Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Hi All,

That's ok Alberto, I'm more often wrong than I am right I guess I got lucky! I agree you have a logical point, its position is ambiguous. Would a 202HM range fit better with other details?

The problem is we can get a good idea of where Prinz Eugen was but have to rely on a very educated guess as to where Bismarck was in relation to Prinz Eugen at significant times, then, using PoW salvo map, where the British were in relation to Bismarck and then again an educated guess in relation to Prinz Eugen (Plus some of the times don't match).

I'm sure it will be sorted,
Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

you wrote :

The problem is we can get a good idea of where Prinz Eugen was but have to rely on a very educated guess as to where Bismarck was in relation to Prinz Eugen at significant times, then, using PoW salvo map, where the British were in relation to Bismarck and then again an educated guess in relation to Prinz Eugen (Plus some of the times don't match).

I'm sure it will be sorted,

You are right CAG, ... it has been sorted years ago and lately only improved as far as precision, ... and I am only in the process to improve it further more, ... surely not to put it in discussion because of different personal opinions not properly supported by evidence.

We have a good idea of where Prinz Eugen was according to her own battle map and the photo and film evidence supporting it, demonstrating the battle track in there is correct.

We have a good idea of where Bismarck was in relation to Prinz Eugen thanking the various information and the photo+film reference when properly positioned.

We have a good idea of where the British where in relation to both Prinz Eugen and Bismarck by simply connecting bearings and distances, ... and the 3 Local Control salvos fired by PoW at the end of the engagement, ... which provide a very useful synch point in the middle of this battle, ... after the Hood explosion one.

There will always be something that will not perfectly match on the many maps and documents we have both sides, ... but the main battle frame is defined once for good and nothing can change it, ... unless somebody will be able to find new official material showing us something different.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hi Cag,

Since our German speakers are proving shy could you hazard a translation of "Ein lezten granaten der “Hood” die uber Prinz Eugen hinwegheul als weisschusse in die see fuhren. Im hinterland “Bismarck”

This is the original caption ( thanks Antonio ) for the picture Antonio assigns to PoW's LC shot but which I believe the PK Photographer (who was there) says something along the lines of, the last shell from the HOOD screams over the PG and makes a white foaming splash in the sea. In the background Bismarck.

Incidentally do you believe Aylwin and his crew were hundreds if not thousands of yards short with their first LC salvo and then magically within a few seconds started dropping subsequent shots within tens of metres of Prinz Eugen, whilst executing a maximum rate starboard turn?

Go tell it to the Marines

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

Sean, surely CAG or anybody else can translate that German caption for us and I have no problem realizing what it means.
But it is just incorrect, no matter what and you should have had the competence to realize it at once.

Why ? It is very simple ...

The 2 single shells ( fact ) that we see on the film landing close to Bismarck are separated by 20 seconds only and the film is with no interruption or cuts between them ( fact ).

It is also a fact that Bismarck is on course 270 having already turned since she is firing backwards and with the fwd turrets at their extreme rotation backwards, same for the rangefinder/radar.

Another very important fact is that Prinz Euegn is turning too at the beginning of the film while the first of the 2 single shells is falling close to the Bismarck stern.

We know when Prinz Eugen turned to starboard for the first time in this battle and it was at 06:03:45 seconds according to her own battle map no one can refute.
This is confirmed by many Prinz Eugen battle reports as well as by the available photos Nh69724 and Nh69731 showing the Prinz Eugen still on convergent course toward the enemy, because of her port side railings well visible on the photos.
The photo Nh 69731 shows PoW retreating and the first of the local control salvos of 2 shells falling short of the German units directed toward Bismarck that was behind the photographer on board the Prinz Eugen.

PoW_3_local_BS_photos_PG_film_correlation.jpg (108.14 KiB) Viewed 1249 times

It should not take much to realize that consequently those 2 photos can only be taken after the photo Nh69731 ( 2 shells ) and the Prinz Eugen turn to starboard, because this first PG turn was not yet started when the photo Nh 69731 was taken.
This is just logic, elementary and irrefutable.

Now back on our 2 single shell photos taken after the PG turn to starboard at 06:03:45 and separated by only 20 seconds, we have 2 captions on the same book and a kind German to English translation in our hands.

Since one if the 2 is obviously incorrect, we ask ourself : which one is correct and which one is incorrect ?

I have demostrated you why the caption of the one you refer to is incorrect being impossible, ... now I wait for your explanation on why my way to read and judge those captions is not correct.

Of course, to try, at least you must have the same supporting evidence on your side my friend ... since your impossible theory and the incorrect Schmalenbach map of 1971, ... completely modified 2 times after by same author, ... are not enough to provide you any solid ground to hold on to.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "Incidentally do you believe Aylwin and his crew were hundreds if not thousands of yards short with their first LC salvo and then magically within a few seconds started dropping subsequent shots within tens of metres of Prinz Eugen, whilst executing a maximum rate starboard turn? "

Hi Sean,
I honestly find your recent attempt to "revisit" the battle (after realizing you have no way to counter Antonio's reconstruction) quite embarrassing, not having solid evidences to support your theory of a turn away of the Germans at 5:55 and not being able to read, interpret and position the available photos, as Antonio demonstrated to you in his above post....

You clearly have an agenda for doing that, and I can even respect or at least look with sympathy your attitude, but what I find really annoying here is your attempt to ridicule and diminish the brave and competent behavior of Aylwin and his crew (Royal Marines too, not only Captains, are worth a bit of respect) who tried to do their duty up to the end, to hit Bismarck, correcting a clearly short salvo, having as an easy to use reference the PG too (between PoW and their target), and firing two quite good shots as a final result.
Again, please try at least to read maps, photos and film correctly, they are not tens of meters, hundreds at least......and there is no hard turn to starboard for PoW at the time of salvo 20 and 21, at worst (around 6:04) just a slight course correction after the hard emergency turn to port to disengage that took the ship too far eastward.

I find your above words really unfair to Aylwin and to his crew, in your desperate attempt to defend at any cost the decision of another officer of the ship who did not his utmost to fight during the battle......

Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Hi All,

Wow Wadinga my girlfriend and I discussed many things, but shell splashes were not one of them! She once shouted Passt Auf at me which when I awoke about 10 minutes later she kindly translated as look out! Thats the day I also realised that motor vehicles are soft on the inside and hard on the outside!

As far as my Deutsch takes me "A last shell of the Hood that (Howls?) over the Prinz Eugen and drives into the sea as a white shell/shot splash? In the background is Bismarck" But please do not quote me and apologies to my many German speaking friends!

Best wishes,
Cag.

[Cag]

Hi All,

Sorry Wadinga as for the local control salvos, I bow to better knowledge, as I'm no expert.

The only thing that bugs me is that we know that the shell ring jam that put Y turret out of action occurred at salvo 20. This means that it probably affected salvo 21. It just makes more sense, to me only I know, for the two single shots seen on the film to be better targeted whilst the turret was 'under control' and that the way short double shot salvo seen in the photograph to have happened due to the turret having jammed in salvo 21?

Anyhow for the time being I'm happy to take the advice of more experienced contributors.
Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

you wrote :

The only thing that bugs me is that we know that the shell ring jam that put Y turret out of action occurred at salvo 20. This means that it probably affected salvo 21. It just makes more sense, to me only I know, for the two single shots seen on the film to be better targeted whilst the turret was 'under control' and that the way short double shot salvo seen in the photograph to have happened due to the turret having jammed in salvo 21?

Negative CAG, ... ... as I already wrote, ... it is impossible for the photo Nh 69731 ( 2 PoW short shells ) being taken after the 2 single shells visible on the film.

@ Alberto,

you wrote ;

Hi Sean,

I honestly find your recent attempt to "revisit" the battle (after realizing you have no way to counter Antonio's reconstruction) quite embarrassing, not having solid evidences to support your theory of a turn away of the Germans at 5:55 and not being able to read, interpret and position the available photos, as Antonio demonstrated to you in his above post....

You clearly have an agenda for doing that, and I can even respect or at least look with sympathy your attitude, but what I find really annoying here is your attempt to ridicule and diminish the brave and competent behavior of Aylwin and his crew (Royal Marines too, not only Captains, are worth a bit of respect) who tried to do their duty up to the end, to hit Bismarck, correcting a clearly short salvo, having as an easy to use reference the PG too (between PoW and their target), and firing two quite good shots as a final result.

Again, please try at least to read maps, photos and film correctly, they are not tens of meters, hundreds at least......and there is no hard turn to starboard for PoW at the time of salvo 20 and 21, at worst (around 6:04) just a slight course correction after the hard emergency turn to port to disengage that took the ship too far eastward.

I find your above words really unfair to Aylwin and to his crew, in your desperate attempt to defend at any cost the decision of another officer of the ship who did not his utmost to fight during the battle......

Bye, Alberto

I agree with your opinion and I thank you for your nice words.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

quite embarrassing, not having solid evidences to support your theory of a turn away of the Germans at 5:55

There seems to be a little confusion: I have not made this up. This is not a theory.This is what the Baron says. This is what Schmalenbach says. This is witness evidence.

That Antonio's interpretation of the LC photos is contradicted both by the Bundesarchive caption, probably supplied by the photographer himself and also by those in Busch's book, who was at the battle himself, is a little frustrating I imagine in trying to sell this reimagining of what could have happened. And this contradiction of the eye witnesses is based solely on Antonio seeing only a single splash in the field of view and jumping to a false conclusion. The ships are diverting away from each other after Bismarck's early turn away, just after 05:55 with PG remaining on course.

But this is truly bizarre

annoying here is your attempt to ridicule and diminish the brave and competent behavior of Aylwin and his crew (Royal Marines too, not only Captains, are worth a bit of respect) who tried to do their duty up to the end, to hit Bismarck,

Where is there any ridicule?

Antonio's map shows PoW turning hard 90 degrees to starboard in the minute it takes to fire the LC salvoes, having only just completed a 160 degree turn to port. His theoretical "analysis" suggests phenomenal accuracy under violently manouevering circumstances with inadequate fire control, equipment. Aylwin and his team made a spirited effort but they are not supermen. They cannot correct their second LC shot to be so accurate since it fired only 20 seconds after the first in Antonio's map. The analysis, based on the simplistic observation one splash only in field of view must be a single shot salvo, and the only ones were the LC salvoes- is plainly incorrect.

Anyway let's listen to a gunnery specialist who was there. Geoffrey Brooke. "Each turret was equipped with rudimentary fire control gear for just this emergency and now he used it to get off - rather wildly as was to be expected - three or four salvoes over our starboard quarter." My italics/underlining.

Brooke expected it. I would expect it. Any reasoned evaluation would expect it. The film runs from about 05:56 onwards, and the extracted stills show Hood's shots falling near PG, just as the eye witnesses recorded.

Cag, thanks for your effort in German. If only she had shouted Achtung! I bet you would have understood.

All the best

wadinga

[paulcadogan]

Hi folks,

In watching the PG film again, it seems to me that there MAY JUST BE a THIRD splash shown!

It shows for a split second at about 3:13-3:14 in the video linked below. The camera is jerking a bit as the second splash is collapsing, and jerks to the left and there SEEMS to be another splash there collapsing. The camera jerks away immediately, but when it jerks back to the spot couple seconds later (which you can recognize from the background clouds) - there is nothing there. So it is not background cloud...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU76vVM6lWY

Am I seeing things? Or did I just shake things up?

Take a look and tell me....

Paul

[dunmunro]

Hi folks,

In watching the PG film again, it seems to me that there MAY JUST BE a THIRD splash shown!

It shows for a split second at about 3:13-3:14 in the video linked below. The camera is jerking a bit as the second splash is collapsing, and jerks to the left and there SEEMS to be another splash there collapsing. The camera jerks away immediately, but when it jerks back to the spot couple seconds later (which you can recognize from the background clouds) - there is nothing there. So it is not background cloud...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU76vVM6lWY

Am I seeing things? Or did I just shake things up?

Take a look and tell me....

Paul

Yes, definitely there's a shell splash at 3:13 visible in the upper left of the frame.