Bismarck firing procedures at DS

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Alecsandros,

this is what the Baron stated :

Kapitänleutnant von Müllenheim-Rechberg stated, when interrogated aboard H.M.S. "Dorsetshire," that "Hood" closed the range rapidly, made smoke, and was hit as she turned to port, the smoke possibly assisting ranging.
He added then that "Hood" blew up on "Bismarck's" fifth salvo and cost Germany forty shells in all.

From here : C.B. 4051 (24) GERMAN BATTLESHIP BISMARCK Interrogation of Survivors - August 1941 at page 13-14.

http://www.uboatarchive.net/BismarckINT.htm

Bye Antonio

[alecsandros]

Hello everybody,

@ Alecsandros,

this is what the Baron stated :

Kapitänleutnant von Müllenheim-Rechberg stated, when interrogated aboard H.M.S. "Dorsetshire," that "Hood" closed the range rapidly, made smoke, and was hit as she turned to port, the smoke possibly assisting ranging.
He added then that "Hood" blew up on "Bismarck's" fifth salvo and cost Germany forty shells in all.

From here : C.B. 4051 (24) GERMAN BATTLESHIP BISMARCK Interrogation of Survivors - August 1941 at page 13-14.

http://www.uboatarchive.net/BismarckINT.htm

Bye Antonio

I know what he said,
but is no definitive proof.
In his book, his account of the battle with Hood is self-contradictory.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Alecsandros,

here some other inputs :

Sequence of Events

The following sequence of events has been arrived at from the sifting of all the evidence available from HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Norfolk.

(a) Ships opened fire in the following order: Hood, Bismarck, Prince of Wales, all within one minute.
Bismarck fired 4-gun salvos. Gun range: 23,000 yards (approx).

(b) Opening salvo from Bismarck fell ahead of Hood, as observed from Prince of Wales. It was therefore probably out for line and slightly short.
(c) Second salvo fell between Prince of Wales and Hood. It was therefore probably correct for line, but still short.
(d) Third salvo was a straddle and included at least one hit which apparently burst on the port side just before the mainmast.
(e) Fourth salvo was probably just over, as it appeared to be astern of Hood.
(f) Fifth salvo undoubtedly straddled and hit, and Hood blew up. Gun range: 16,500 yards.

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 1_to59.htm

and

E - Notes on Enemy Gunnery

2.Method of Fire. - Bismarck appeared to fire the whole of her fore group (i.e. "A" and "B" turrets), followed by the whole of her aft group ("X" and "Y" turrets).
Towards the end of the morning action, guns in a group were definitely observed to "ripple" as if one or more turrets were in gunlayers' firing.

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm

Bye Antonio

[alecsandros]

... Exactly.
So 20 to 28 or 36 shots* are more plausible , from the British reports.
We do not know the reality.

---
*20 as a minimum, coming from 5 salvos of 4-guns each (5 x 4). 28 (or 36) as a probable number, coming from the first 3 salvos being 4-gun salvos (3 x 4), and the subsequent 2 or 3 salvos being 8-gun salvos (2 x 8 guns or 3 x 8 guns ).

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi all,
I would add another witness (you know I'm not a fan of this particular witness , but here I don't see any hidden agenda in his declarations):

Capt.Leach at second board of inquiry said: ".....I happened to be looking at "Hood" at the moment when a salvo arrived and it appeared to be across the ship somewhere about the mainmast. In that salvo there were, I think, two shots short and one over, but it may have been the other way round. But I formed the impression at the time that something had arrived on board "Hood"....."

Therefore, also according to Leach, Bismarck was never firing broadsides to Hood, just 4 shells salvos at least until Hood explosion, and I guess even after.

My 2 cents opinion here is that hypothetically every option is good, but historically I don't see any reason why we should doubt either of the Baron account (40 shells and 5 (full) salvos to sink Hood) or of Lutjens message (accounting for 93 total shells fired at DS)......


Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

My 2 cents opinion here is that hypothetically every option is good, but historically I don't see any reason why we should doubt either of the Baron account (40 shells and 5 (full) salvos to sink Hood) or of Lutjens message (accounting for 93 total shells fired at DS)......

One reason would be that the British reported something else.
Another would be that the Baron's book is self-contradictory on the pages concerning the battle with Hood and firing sequence.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Alecsandros wrote: "One reason would be that the British reported something else."

Hi Alec, also the various British witnesses were contradictory about the number of salvos fired by Bismarck to sink Hood.....

I guess the Baron had time after the battle to speak in the wardroom to the other gunnery officers and to get the most probable number of shots (40 is already a surprisingly low number of shots, if they were 20 or 28 it would have been a great argument of discussion and an immense source of pride for the gunnery department of Bismarck.....).
BTW, this number matches almost perfectly with the total 93 shells expended (112 or 116 ordered to fire) in terms of RoF during the whole battle and therefore is still IMHO the most probable hypothesis.....


Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

... Yes the Baron had time, that doesn't mean anything.
Again, his own book is self-contradicting in regards to Bismarck firing sequence, so I take care in evaluating his report on ammo expended.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Alec,
I agree, but the Baron's book was written after many years, this info is almost "real time" (very few months later).

I would find strange to overestimate the number of shots expended as it would have been a great satisfaction for any German prisoner officer to say that the pride of the RN had been destroyed with (let's say) 28 shots only.....

Also, there is too much time between the hit on the boat deck and the "fatal" one to account for only few shots...... The accounts of the Hood survivors describe the attempt to extinguish the fire, the explosion of the ready to use ammo, the decision of Holland to let the fire burn, etc. and they match with other British witnesses (on board PoW and cruisers) that describe the fire start, enlarging and then going down a bit before the fatal hit, thus confirming the fire started at around 5:57 and still 3 minutes fire for Bismarck before sinking Hood. So, I think many more shots ordered, at least 36 in total (in 4-shells salvos), or 40 or even 44, before switching fire to PoW.

Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

... The quantity of shells expended versus Hood comes from the Baron only, and he has numerous errors in his book regarding the battle. There is no evidence that other survivors knew about the ammo expenditure.

Remember the Baron watched Suffolk and Norfolk, and did not take part in the gunnery battle in an active way.

The exact "40 shots" number can be a simple assumption that he made 5 salvos x 8 shots/salvo = 40 shots.

British eye-witnesses explicitly mention 5 salvos, but not full salvos.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Yes Alec,
but how could have Bismarck fired only 20 shots in 5 minutes battle (with such a disgusting RoF) ?
More, 3 hits out of 20 shots starting from cold guns, and with target quickly approaching, would have been an unrealistic gunnery performance anyway......

Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

Yes Alec,
but how could have Bismarck fired only 20 shots in 5 minutes battle with a RoF worse than any existing battleship ? In addition 3 hits out of 20 shots starting from cold guns, and with target quickly approaching, would have been an unrealistic gunnery performance......

Bye, Alberto

All that is secondary.
What is primary is that official reports from the BRitish side mention 5 or 6 salvos. The British did not know the firing methodology or order on board Bismarck , and they reported the fall of shot as they saw it.

The possible ultra-low rate of fire against Hood can be explained pretty well, IMHO, by battle geometry and rate of approach.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Possibly Bismarck was firing A+B and shortly after C+D, thus British witnesses counted 1 salvo meaning a double-salvo.

The Baron may have done mistakes in his accounts, but IMHO his book is far the best one I have read yet on the battle......


This is G.W.Rowell (PoW navigating officer present in compass platform) account at second Board of Inquiry (very precise as you see yourself) and it accounts for 3 salvos before the fire on the boat deck, first turn to port, several other salvos (zig-zag ladders, so salvos, not broadsides), second planned turn to port and finally the fatal salvo.

Lieutenant Commander G.W.Rowell said: "31. Will you tell us what you saw of the "Hood" from the time she opened fire until the time she blew up?
The "Hood" opened fire with her foremost turrets with the enemy about 40 deg. on the starboard bow and "Prince of Wales" opened fire with her foremost turrets about half a minute later. Shortly after "Prince of Wales" first salvo "Bismarck" opened fire with all four turrets. The Bismarck's opening salvo fell very close to the "Hood." I think, but I am not sure, that it was just over. The spread was extremely small, I think it was the third salvo from the "Bismarck" which first hit the "Hood" and a fierce fire started on the "Hood" boat deck abaft the mainmast. My impression is that this fire was on the portside. "Prince of Wales" at this time was fine on the "Hood's" starboard quarter.

32. Will you turn the model so that it is at the correct inclination?
(Witness indicated an inclination of approximately 20 deg. to the right and told the court he would work out what it actually was.) Immediately after being hit, the Vice-Admiral hoisted the signal for a turnaway together of 20 degrees. This was executed about two minutes later and the "A" arcs of "Hood" and "Prince of Wales" thus brought to bear. Meanwhile the fire on the boat deck was spreading forward steadily and appeared to be gaining ground. The fire appeared to me to be similar to a petrol fire. There was a large amount of flame but very little smoke.

33. Can you indicate the colour of the flame?
The flame was comparatively light in colour I should say "5" in exhibit 2. I remember thinking that although the sire was spreading it appeared to be confined to above the boat-deck and there was no indication that it was spreading downwards. "Bismarck's" firing continued to be accurate and salvos fell just short and just over as if she was using some form of zig-zag ladder. The Vice-Admiral hoisted a second signal for another turn of 20 deg. away but before it could be executed the "Hood" was hit by another salvo. It was clear that she had been hit because of a throwing up of dark coloured debris from just before the mainmast from a position which I am sure in my own mind was close to the centre line on the boat-deck. After perhaps two or three seconds there was an uprush of orange coloured flame from this same position and it was apparent that a very serious explosion had resulted"

Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

Alberto,
he confirms again that Hood was hit on salvo 3 - and that was a semi-salvo, as Bismarck fired 4 + 4 + 4 shots before hitting Hood first time.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Alec,
yes but he added: ""Bismarck's" firing continued to be accurate and salvos fell just short and just over as if she was using some form of zig-zag ladder. ", thus quite a number of other salvos (4 guns) after the first 3 ones before the fatal hit (belonging to another 4 guns salvo as per Leach testimony)......

Around 40 shots are the ones needed to achieve 3 hits with that battle geometry, with 20 shots it would be almost impossible......

PoW fired 9 (or 10) salvos between 5:55 and 6:00, same battle geometry, why should have Bismarck fired so slowly, while Schneider was already impatient to open fire before Lutjens order ?


Bye, Alberto