Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Steve Crandell » Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:09 pm

So it wasn't the turn away to port which caused Y turret to jam.

User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by paulcadogan » Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:49 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:My friend you are surely referring to your well known photo Nh 69731 and not Nh 69725 when you talk of the 2 shell splashes.
:oops: :oops: :oops: Of course...NH69731..how could I make that mistake! :oops: :oops: :oops:

With regards to my questions....all I can say is...asked and answered...thanks! That is good to know.

And @ Steve - the jam occurred during the first turn away around Hood's wreck. It is said to have happened as the ship heeled in the turn.
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Steve Crandell » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:34 pm

paulcadogan wrote:
Antonio Bonomi wrote:My friend you are surely referring to your well known photo Nh 69731 and not Nh 69725 when you talk of the 2 shell splashes.
:oops: :oops: :oops: Of course...NH69731..how could I make that mistake! :oops: :oops: :oops:

With regards to my questions....all I can say is...asked and answered...thanks! That is good to know.

And @ Steve - the jam occurred during the first turn away around Hood's wreck. It is said to have happened as the ship heeled in the turn.
Then how could the turret continue to fire during the turn as shown in Antonio's latest plot a couple of posts ago?

A ship sometimes generates a much greater heel when reversing a turn, so I wonder whether it actually happened during the turn back to starboard. Probably the damage report makes it clear which way the ship was turning when the casualty occurred, but I don't have access to that right now.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:40 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Steve Crandell
Steve Crandell wrote:So it wasn't the turn away to port which caused Y turret to jam.
No, it was the counter turn immediately after, during the firing of salvo 20th, ... the second in local control of 1 shell, ... the one we can see falling on Bismarck stern when PG Rheinubung official battle film starts.

Here you can see it on the original handmade PoW gunnery map as well as from the German view point.

I was right ! the 19th salvo, the first in local control started at 06.03 and 10 seconds ... and I was able to determine it by crossing all the other available info's I had without having this official PoW gunnery map redone and available into the Admiralty records, ... and never made available to anybody until I found it last month.
06_03_45 seconds of DS battle.JPG
06_03_45 seconds of DS battle.JPG (165.67 KiB) Viewed 823 times
PoW_disengagement_1077.jpg
PoW_disengagement_1077.jpg (73.85 KiB) Viewed 823 times
Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3967
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro » Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:05 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:

I am glad to announce you that I now have in my hand a SOLID evidence in writing on a map that all my hard researched work and my intuition of those 3 PoW local control salvoes being the KEY to understand all the events timing before and after ... was CORRECT ! ... and consequently now there is NO room anymore even to put them in discussion ... especially the photo Nh 69731 showing exactly the first one, ... the 19th PoW salvo ... or the 1st in local control if you like it better, ... 2 shells.

Somebody into an official PoW gunnery map made a cross to declare when they were really fired, ..and just like the 18 degrees on Plan 4, … that makes for me all the difference in this world. Again, into RN Admiralty in London, … they understood and carefully analyze EVERYTHING, … just like I did for last 10 years ,…but they were much better than me of course.
PoW_local_salvoes.jpg
It has been a pleasure for me to open those official documents and find out so many confirmations of my hard work on this battle re-construction.
Those are sensations and satisfactions I will never forget.

Bye Antonio :D
This also confirms that Y turret shell ring jammed during the 2nd turn (~0603) NOT during the turn at ~601:30.

User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by paulcadogan » Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:39 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:No, it was the counter turn immediately after, during the firing of salvo 20th, ... the second in local control of 1 shell, ... the one we can see falling on Bismarck stern when PG Rheinubung official battle film starts.
OK, so the jam therefore occurred during the reversal of the turnaway to port, as shown on the map - DURING the firing of the local control salvos. In other wors, when the ship was coming back to starboard. I see McMullen says it was at salvo 20 - while the turret was training - so clearly the ship was turning and the turret had to train to stay on target.

I was hoping you'd post those pictures along with the maps to show how they fit. Thanks.
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:05 pm

Hello everybody,
Steve Crandell wrote:
paulcadogan wrote:
Antonio Bonomi wrote:My friend you are surely referring to your well known photo Nh 69731 and not Nh 69725 when you talk of the 2 shell splashes.
:oops: :oops: :oops: Of course...NH69731..how could I make that mistake! :oops: :oops: :oops:

With regards to my questions....all I can say is...asked and answered...thanks! That is good to know.

And @ Steve - the jam occurred during the first turn away around Hood's wreck. It is said to have happened as the ship heeled in the turn.
Then how could the turret continue to fire during the turn as shown in Antonio's latest plot a couple of posts ago?

A ship sometimes generates a much greater heel when reversing a turn, so I wonder whether it actually happened during the turn back to starboard.
Probably the damage report makes it clear which way the ship was turning when the casualty occurred, but I don't have access to that right now.
Here from the PoW gunnery report the data you asked about the jamming at salvo 20 on Y turret at 06.03 and 30 seconds more or less :
The following defects occurred in "Y" turret : Salvo 20 - Owing to the motion of the ship, a shell slid out of the port shell room and fouled the revolving shell ring while the latter was locked to the trunk and the turret was training. The hinge tray was severely buckled, putting the revolving shell ring out of action. The tray was removed, but on testing the ring it was found that No. 3 and 4 hinge trays of the starboard shell room had also been buckled and were fouling the ring. The cause of this is not yet known. The trays were removed and as the action had stopped by this time, No. 4 tray was dressed up and replaced. The ring was out of action until 08.25.
Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Steve Crandell » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:10 pm

So this occurred arguably when Leach was opening the range but preparing to re-engage Bismarck, having turned partway back toward her. He learned Y turret shell ring was jammed and decided to disengage.

Why is this sequence not logical?

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:20 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Steve Crandell,

simply because Captain Leach himself told us he decided to retreat disengaging before being maneuvered around the remains of Hood and NEVER even thought about re-engaging.

Appendix to "HMS Prince of Wales" NO.001.B. dated 4th June, 1941.
TO : The Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet
Copy to Rear Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron – CS1
SECRET
During the approach "Hood" made - "G.I.C." - followed by - "G.O.B.1" - just before opening fire at 0552 1/2. Range approx. 25,000 yards. "Prince of Wales" opened fire at 0553. "Bismarck" replied with extreme accuracy on "Hood". 2nd or 3rd salvo straddled and fire broke out in "Hood" in the vicinity of the port after 4" gun mounting. Lighter ship engaged "Prince of Wales". "Price of Wales" opening salvo was observed over, 6th was seen to straddle.
At this time "Prince of Wales" had 5 (five) 14" guns in action. "Y" turret would not bear.
Fire in "Hood" spread rapidly to the mainmast. A turn of 2 blue at 0555 opened "A" Arcs at "Prince of Wales" ninth salvo ( 4 main guns more from this moment onward 5+4 = 9 ). "Hood" had a further 2 blue flying when, at 0600, just after "Bismarck's" 5th salvo, a huge explosion occurred between "Hood's" after funnel and mainmast and she sank in three or four minutes. "Hood" had fired five or six salvos but fall of shot was not seen, possibly because this coincided with firing of "Prince of Wales'" guns.
"Prince of Wales" starboard 5.25" battery was now in action. Course had to be altered to starboard to avoid remains of "Hood"; meanwhile "Bismarck" had shifted main and secondary armament fire quickly and accurately onto "Prince of Wales". A heavy hit was felt almost immediately.
And at 0602 compass platform was hit and majority of personnel killed. Navigating Officer was wounded; Commanding Officer unhurt.
The same salvo severed all fire control leads to the port forward H.A. Director and put the starboard forward H.A. Director out of action temporarily jamming it in training. The control officer of the latter ordered all turrets to go into "After Control". This was carried out, but, about the same time a 15" shell burst on the boat deck and seriously upset the starboard after H.A. Director. The crew of this director had already been considerably blasted by "Y" Turret firing on a forward bearing. The 15" shell burst threw the control officer off his feet and broke his telephone lead. By the time he was again through to the H.A.C.P. The target was lost behind smoke astern.
It was considered expedient to break off the action and consolidate the position, and the ship, after being manoeuvred round the remains of "Hood", turned away behind a smoke screen. "Y" Turret fired in local during the turn as smoke blanked the after director.
It now seems probable that the enemy turned away at the same time as "Prince of Wales" and about two enemy salvos were seen short during this period.
The "Prince of Wales" fired 18 main armament salvos. The target was crossed and recrossed and three straddles observed. No hits were seen. True range on opening fire was 25,000 yards. The true range on ceasing fire was 14,500 yards.
The 5.25" opened fire at a range of 18,000 yards but only fired 3 salvos.
"Y" Turret's shell ring jammed during the turn away and the turret was out of action until 0825.
After retiring on a course of about 160 degs. "Prince of Wales" circled to port, steadying up on a course of 250 degs.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
(Signed) J.C.Leach Captain, Royal Navy
As you can read NO mention of any re-engagement at all, ... and the decision to turn away ,... taken BEFORE the turn around Hood remains ...so at 06.01 and 30 seconds.

Hope this will end the discussion about all this debate and the ridiculous 06.13 PoW retreat timing invented and written for 72 years on books.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3967
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:36 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Steve Crandell,

simply because Captain Leach himself told us he decided to retreat disengaging before being maneuvered around the remains of Hood and NEVER even thought about re-engaging.

Appendix to "HMS Prince of Wales" NO.001.B. dated 4th June, 1941.
TO : The Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet
Copy to Rear Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron – CS1
SECRET
During the approach "Hood" made - "G.I.C." - followed by - "G.O.B.1" - just before opening fire at 0552 1/2. Range approx. 25,000 yards. "Prince of Wales" opened fire at 0553. "Bismarck" replied with extreme accuracy on "Hood". 2nd or 3rd salvo straddled and fire broke out in "Hood" in the vicinity of the port after 4" gun mounting. Lighter ship engaged "Prince of Wales". "Price of Wales" opening salvo was observed over, 6th was seen to straddle.
At this time "Prince of Wales" had 5 (five) 14" guns in action. "Y" turret would not bear.
Fire in "Hood" spread rapidly to the mainmast. A turn of 2 blue at 0555 opened "A" Arcs at "Prince of Wales" ninth salvo ( 4 main guns more from this moment onward 5+4 = 9 ). "Hood" had a further 2 blue flying when, at 0600, just after "Bismarck's" 5th salvo, a huge explosion occurred between "Hood's" after funnel and mainmast and she sank in three or four minutes. "Hood" had fired five or six salvos but fall of shot was not seen, possibly because this coincided with firing of "Prince of Wales'" guns.
"Prince of Wales" starboard 5.25" battery was now in action. Course had to be altered to starboard to avoid remains of "Hood"; meanwhile "Bismarck" had shifted main and secondary armament fire quickly and accurately onto "Prince of Wales". A heavy hit was felt almost immediately.
And at 0602 compass platform was hit and majority of personnel killed. Navigating Officer was wounded; Commanding Officer unhurt.
The same salvo severed all fire control leads to the port forward H.A. Director and put the starboard forward H.A. Director out of action temporarily jamming it in training. The control officer of the latter ordered all turrets to go into "After Control". This was carried out, but, about the same time a 15" shell burst on the boat deck and seriously upset the starboard after H.A. Director. The crew of this director had already been considerably blasted by "Y" Turret firing on a forward bearing. The 15" shell burst threw the control officer off his feet and broke his telephone lead. By the time he was again through to the H.A.C.P. The target was lost behind smoke astern.
It was considered expedient to break off the action and consolidate the position, and the ship, after being manoeuvred round the remains of "Hood", turned away behind a smoke screen. "Y" Turret fired in local during the turn as smoke blanked the after director.
It now seems probable that the enemy turned away at the same time as "Prince of Wales" and about two enemy salvos were seen short during this period.
The "Prince of Wales" fired 18 main armament salvos. The target was crossed and recrossed and three straddles observed. No hits were seen. True range on opening fire was 25,000 yards. The true range on ceasing fire was 14,500 yards.
The 5.25" opened fire at a range of 18,000 yards but only fired 3 salvos.
"Y" Turret's shell ring jammed during the turn away and the turret was out of action until 0825.
After retiring on a course of about 160 degs. "Prince of Wales" circled to port, steadying up on a course of 250 degs.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
(Signed) J.C.Leach Captain, Royal Navy
As you can read NO mention of any re-engagement at all, ... and the decision to turn away ,... taken BEFORE the turn around Hood remains ...so at 06.01 and 30 seconds.

Hope this will end the discussion about all this debate and the ridiculous 06.13 PoW retreat timing invented and written for 72 years on books.

Bye Antonio :D
It was considered expedient to break off the action and consolidate the position, and the ship, after being manoeuvred round the remains of "Hood", turned away behind a smoke screen. "Y" Turret fired in local during the turn as smoke blanked the after director.

Consider the above statement.
Leach states that he "manoevered around the remains of Hood" : this is the turns at ~0601:30 AND at ~0603.
so Leach states that is still continuing the engagement until the last turn at ~605 when he turns away. The turn at 0603 cannot be a "turn(ed) away" as it is a turn toward the enemy, opening PoW's A arcs and exposing her to further enemy fire and it constitutes part of "...being manoeuvred round the remains of "Hood"..." There can only be one turn away to "break off the action" and that is the turn at ~0605.

We could rephrase the above sentence to: After we manoevered around the remains of Hood I decided to break off the action and consolidate the position. The ship turned away behind a smoke screen. "Y" Turret fired in local during the turn as smoke blanked the after director.

The statement is now clearer although it says the same things and it is apparent that there was only one turn away and it happened at ~0605.

The thing that is puzzling is why A and B turrets did not fire after 0603 when they clearly could have. My guess is that Mcmullen assumed that PoW was going to continue turning to ~060d and so the forward director along with A and B turret were trained round to port when control was passed over to the after director. When PoW turned back to starboard to ~220d at ~0603 the forward turrets were unable to fire before Leach decided to turn away. The jammed Y turret and zero output from the forward turrets could not have encouraged him to continue the action.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3967
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:46 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Alecsandros,

many thanks, it is always good to see how the hard research work is evaluated.

@ all

and after having seen how and why Adm Tovey saved RearAdm F. Wake-Walker , here you can evaluate what Adm Tovey had to overwrite with his 06.13 disengagement time for PoW in order to save Capt. J.C. Leach releasing those evidences that could have been used against him by an Inquiry.

It is particularly interesting to notice how on Capt. Leach messages/narrative the number of guns working moved backwards and increase in number from the first to the last version of events, while the hit on the compass platform time came back 30 seconds, and the disengagement occurred while Y turret could bear since PoW 9 th salvo, so other 4 guns were firing too ( total up to 9 ), since it jammed during the turn away already in process.
It is obvious that the first radio message contained a transcription error that was corrected in the appendix statement.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2105
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by wadinga » Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:10 am

Hi Antonio,

You have posted a fragment of a "PG official map" which is similar but different to that at the end of the KTB, which indicates she was 180 hectometres away from something or other at 06:03. What is on the other end of the line please?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by paulcadogan » Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:53 am

dunmunro wrote:The thing that is puzzling is why A and B turrets did not fire after 0603 when they clearly could have. My guess is that Mcmullen assumed that PoW was going to continue turning to ~060d and so the forward director along with A and B turret were trained round to port when control was passed over to the after director. When PoW turned back to starboard to ~220d at ~0603 the forward turrets were unable to fire before Leach decided to turn away. The jammed Y turret and zero output from the forward turrets could not have encouraged him to continue the action.
Is it stated in the log that she turned back to 220 or is the course on the maps just a meandering line? It seems to vary in the sharpness of the turn from map to map. If you notice the course up to 0600 tends to be straight lines connecting specific times for course changes, but after that they become curvy and therefore less precise...

Besides, Duncan, Leach stated that the local control salvos were fired during the turn not before and by 0605 they had all been fired so I'm afraid the 'S'- shaped maneuver may have been just that - an evasive maneuver while retreating under fire. the only thing to say for sure might be the ship's log.

Antonio...were you able to examine PoW's log?

And one more thing....McMullen mentions nothing about regaining sight of the enemy in either his report or in his interview - probably because he was masked by smoke.
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:33 am

Hello everybody,

I posted the PoW gunnery map redone into the Admiralty with the " X " exactly determining the beginning of the Y turret Local control salvoes at 06.03 and 10 seconds, perfectly in line with my re-construction, hoping that it was going to put the word end to the discussion about 06.13.

Unfortunately I see that there is still the intention to move forward as much as possible the PoW disengagement time.

Look at the battle map, I posted 2 views, the view from British side and German side.
Look at were the enemy is and please tell yourself before Y turret started firing in local control, were was located the 160 degree turn to port starting point that broke off the engagement and circled around the remains of Hood allowing finally the PoW to sail away ?
Look and read the event sequence backwards, and realize when that order was released and you will meet Ltnt A. Hunter-Terry precise declaration that when the aft funnel of PoW was hit, his ship was already turning away to port retreating, BEFORE 06.02.

Hope this will end the discussion about when Capt. Leach gave the order to retreat in front of the enemy disengaging and turning away 160 degrees to port releasing a smoke screen once for good.
It cannot be 06.13 as well as it cannot be 06.05, ... simply because it MUST be WELL before 06.03 and 10 seconds, ... very simple and well proven now.
It is enough to believe Rowell, Hunter-Terry and PoW maps and we have the exact PoW breaking-off time : 06.01 and 30 seconds.

By the way, as a footnote neither the Royal Navy Admiralty considered 06.05 as a possibility. When they officially corrected Adm Tovey declaration of 06.13, they looked at the documentation and wrote a very diplomatic 06.03. But that is the end of the 160 degrees turn away from the enemy, not the beginning, and logic dictate that in order to execute an order to turn away retreating, the order must have been issued before the turn started, not at the end of it.

@ Paul Cadogan,

Of course my friend I do have taken the PoW re-written war diary, but I was trying to protect my British friends for having too many shocking inputs at once.
That is another big can of worm to be opened.

@ Wadinga,

You are referring to the data ( 180 hectometers ) written on Ltnt Ernst Reimann provided map answering Vize-Adm Hubert Schmundt request about why he did not fire Prinz Eugen torpedoes to PoW, the one on the right above.
That map, as well as Prinz Eugen battle map, on the left above, defined by Schmundt “ useless and worthless “, gave me lot of troubles during my battle map reconstruction, so I am well prepared about both of them.
If you need we can go inside every measure and line on both of them and correlate them with Ltnt Paulus Jasper ( PG Gunnery Officer ) declared distances, doing exactly what Vize-Adm Hubert Schmundt told Kpt H. Brinkmann to do in order to provide an acceptable battle map for Prinz Eugen after having redone his one using Jasper data.
Reimann was intentionally “ long “ to justify his missing torpedo launch, it was done for that purpose, Brinkmann was just poorly precise from his bridge compared to Jasper.
If you want the exact measured distances from Jasper (PG), here they are : 160-170 hectometers at 05.59 opening fire against PoW and 140 hectometer as the minimum distance versus the enemy PoW when she turned away releasing a smoke screen to cover herself as noticed from Prinz Eugen too, just before 06.02-06.03.
Bismarck was around 1500 meters on Prinz Eugen wake on her starboard side, so you can have an evaluation of the real distances at 06.00 between Hood a bit ahead of PoW and Bismarck, around 15.000 meters seems just right, ... the 18.000 meters is surely incorrect.

I am sure that you have noticed that Jasper matches perfectly the timing we can realize on PoW gunnery maps by Rowell and Ltnt Hunter Terry timing.

I do not think we can do any better at this point, it is perfect from both sides.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Tom17
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:38 pm
Location: Middlesbrough, England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Tom17 » Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:02 am

All,
Is it correct to say that POW's salvo nos. 19, 20 and 21 were fired using the shells loaded in the guns in the turret (4 shells fired in total and not full turret salvoes, 12 shells fired) as I see the timings for the firing are only 20 seconds apart and therefore not of a long enough interval to reload. So why didn't 'Y' turret fire all it's guns in one salvo? Why 2, 1 and 1?
Tom

Post Reply