Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

[alecsandros]

The Baron, page 59 in my edition says of the period in second half November 1940, "Full calibre firing! Unforgettable was the day the Bismarck's heavy guns fired their first salvo. How far, how violently would the recoil cause the ship to heel over................a few loose objects came adrift, a few light bulbs shattered.......... Of course the concussion had already been felt throughout the ship."

... Reconstructed KTB has "breaking in of the guns. Sub-caliber firing of heavy and intermediate artillery" in mid Nov 1940.
Next time she fired was in March 1941.

Bismarck had months of training in the safe waters of the Baltic, before and after Christmas, far from threats of submarine whereas every time PoW left the safety of Scapa Flow she was vulnerable.

This nonsense should be reported sooner or later.

Bismarck was fitting out and then remained blocked in port (by ice), and then repairing damage, in Hamburg, from early December to early March ! . [exact timeline according to KTB - anchored in Hamburg Dec 10th 1940. Completing fitting out and detailing work on Jan 25th. Attempting to get out of the harbor on Jan 28th, severe damage to machinery due to freezing temperatures. This prompted Lindemann from writing in his log "the 5 weeks spent in Hamburg will never be recovered" (between Jan 25th and Fev 28th) Ship not operational until late February. Finaly departing the harbor on March 6th ]. That's 4 months in port !
That was followed by an immediate running aground, which kept the ship in port for another week.

Final (successfull) attempt to resume combat traininig on the seas was in March 18th 1941 (starting of AVKS trials).

[wadinga]

Alecsandros,

So now a gunnery officer makes mistakes when the guns were fired................ by several months? The KTB entries during the work up are minimal on detail.

Breyer details the damage caused by this firing.

October, November and December are months before Christmas, when Bismarck was at sea in the safe Baltic, training.

Bismarck is ready to sail 24th January after minor completion work in the B & V yard. The KTB says combat training continues in harbour. The KTB says the AVKS work is already underway in the first week of February. If Bismarck needed to be at sea she could have taken the same risks as PoW and trained in the North Sea. Lindemann notes in the KTB they could have sailed to the Baltic around Denmark. The Kattegat was frozen that winter but if actually impassable Lindemann would have known.

severe damage to machinery due to freezing temperatures.

minor inconveniences fixed in three days.

4 months in port? Underlined, bold etc etc Mid December to end first week of March isn't even three months. There is no explanation why Bismarck dry docked again, the grounding was minor matter. The KTB says training and AVKS work continued throughout February and did not commence 18th March.

Then Bismarck has months in the Baltic to train before mid-May.

Who's going to get reported for what?

All the best

wadinga

[alecsandros]

Alecsandros,

So now a gunnery officer makes mistakes when the guns were fired................ by several months? The KTB entries during the work up are minimal on detail.

The KTB is a primary source.
But nothing is 100% proof, I agree.

October, November and December are months before Christmas, when Bismarck was at sea in the safe Baltic, training.

Bismarck dropped anchor in Hamburg on Dec 10th.

minor inconveniences fixed in three days.

KTB says 2 weeks. Again, a primary source.

4 months in port? Underlined, bold etc etc Mid December to end first week of March isn't even three months. There is no explanation why Bismarck dry docked again, the grounding was minor matter. The KTB says training and AVKS work continued throughout February and did not commence 18th March.

My bad, it's 3 months in port, followed by another week in dry-dock.

Training did continue in port. Harbor training - the best possible experience for a warship

[wadinga]

Alecsandros,

KTB: Sails into Eastern Sea 28th September, then all of October and all of November and then 10 days of December. So we agree 2 months and ten days before Christmas. Or do you want to fight over a day or two spent in the Kiel Canal?

Two weeks to fix a few frozen valves and gauges in the Builders? Those B & V guys must have been on a unionized "go-slow". The Gestapo should have shot a few to get the others to move about a bit faster.

followed by another week in dry-dock

Then half of March, all of April and half of May, another two months. Carried out so casually the ship is tied up/anchored on many nights by 17:00. Four days in Gotenhafen for Easter. This is part-ime operation. Don't these people know there's a war on?

Contrast this with the savage work-up regime for RN escort crews suffering under the Terror of Tobermory.

I believe the only evidence for "A single salvo fired" was the interrogation of survivors making excuses to ingratiate themselves with their captors. Hardly reliable. The KTB has highly summarised comments for most the training periods but does mention "shot group dispersion pattern" trials on 24th March. But if the Baron remembers firing the big guns and concussion throughout the ship in November 1940 I believe him.

All the best

wadinga

[paulcadogan]

Hello all!

First up, all the best for 2016 to everyone!

True to form - a very robust discussion indeed....

IMHO however, the proof is in the pudding. I don't think anyone anywhere could have asked more of Bismarck and her crew for their performance on the morning of 24th May 1941! Her gunners laid their battery squarely on both targets almost immediately and we all know the results... Her only serious impairments were caused by battle damage. If she was not at "peak" efficiency, her actual state was more than enough to do the job at hand.

For PoW we cannot say the same. Took her 6 salvos to cross her target and, as expected, based on experience during her brief gunnery exercises and the need for Vickers Armstrong techs to be aboard, her main armament - her most important asset in that action - had problems. Problems which were expected to - and did - get worse. She was definitely not at or even near "peak" efficiency and her actual state was not sufficient to truly do the job at hand without a great deal of luck and remedial work by the V-A techs and her crew.

(BTW - the RN STILL in 2016 is using the term "teething problems" - now with their brand new Type 45 destroyers!
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6837 )

And to to take things a little further off topic, in terms of preparedness of the ships involved, what about Hood? Her only actual combat experience vs, other ships was Mers-el-Kebir, which was pretty much shore bombardment. She had many issues of her own, including the fact that she had just completed a refit in March in which her gunnery radar was fitted with little opportunity to exercise with it, being pressed back into service immediately. During an operation in March company with HMS Queen Elizabeth in response to the Twins' activities:

22nd - At 0431 hours CinC HF signalled the Admiralty; ‘Consider HOOD should complete with fuel. She has had no opportunity to work up after long refit and many changes in personnel. Consider 48 hours most desirable’ At 0730 hours the HOOD force were in position 56-15N, 13-53W, course 045º and making 18 knots for Scapa Flow.

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-02BC-Hood.htm

Those personnel changes included a new gunnery officer Lt. Cdr. Edward Moultrie, who joined this ship in February 1941 while she was under refit. His previous assignment as GO was aboard HMS Berwick up to April 1940 and before that aboard the carrier Hermes. His only combat experience involving another ship at sea was sinking two captured German freighters in March 1940. Hood was his first capital ship. http://www.hmshood.com/crew/memorial/m/MoultrieEHF.htm , http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono ... erwick.htm

Ted Briggs did describe one gunnery exercise before Hood sailed to intercept Bismarck.

So Hood wasn't at "peak" efficiency either.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Paul Cadogan wrote:"For PoW we cannot say the same. Took her 6 salvos to cross her target "

Hi Paul, it was long time, we really missed you !

Well, 6 semi-salvos to actually hit her target, just 3 minutes fire. I don't think Bismarck could hit Hood before PoW did with her, possibly only Prinz Eugen did.....

Bye, Alberto

[RF]

Well, 6 semi-salvos to actually hit her target, just 3 minutes fire. I don't think Bismarck could hit Hood before PoW did with her, possibly only Prinz Eugen did.....
Bye, Alberto

I believe that Antonio's reconstruction of the battle timings established that the hit by POW that pierced the forward oil tank of Bismarck was the first hit of this battle. Remember that Holland had opened fire some way ahead of the Germans as Lutjens had delayed his permission to fire.

[alecsandros]

KTB: Sails into Eastern Sea 28th September, then all of October and all of November and then 10 days of December. So we agree 2 months and ten days before Christmas. Or do you want to fight over a day or two spent in the Kiel Canal?

Wadinga,
Before Christmas Bismarck did not have all equipment and personell on board. She kept receiving men up until February.
Directors , radars and tertiary guns (of another type) were installed in Nov and December, IIRC.

Total deployment time on the open seas was about 4 months from comissioning to declaring ship "combat ready".

Gunnery trials of Nov 1940 showed faults. Gunnery trials of March 1941 still showed faults - that were marked to be remedied.

Yes, training continued while in harbor, but they were still a long way from having a complete ship and a good overall experience.

I believe the only evidence for "A single salvo fired" was the interrogation of survivors making excuses to ingratiate themselves with their captors.

Possibly.

Still, the difference in working up between Bismarck and Prince of Wales was of a matter of 2-3 months, and both had a green crew.

[paulcadogan]

Hi Paul, it was long time, we really missed you !

Well, 6 semi-salvos to actually hit her target, just 3 minutes fire. I don't think Bismarck could hit Hood before PoW did with her, possibly only Prinz Eugen did.....

Bye, Alberto

Thanks Alberto! Appreciate your kind thought!

Yes, but Bismarck, according to the Baron's description was on target with Hood with the base salvo of Schneider's 400 m bracket, called for after the 1st salvo was short, (and not short by far as there are descriptions of Hood steaming between the collapsing splashes) - which pretty much agrees with British accounts of a straddle by Bismarck's 3rd salvo. Thus Schneider at the outset "had laid his battery squarely on the target" as the Baron said. And he stayed there until he shifted to PoW and then stayed there putting three or four shells into her within a couple minutes before her turn away under smoke.

PoW was 1500 yards over with her first and had to down-ladder to hit with her 6th (BTW salvo for the British refers to semi-salvo - a broadside refers to all guns) because McMullen was forced to make an educated guess at the range. Still a good achievement....

But still, my basic points remain...which of the two's actual performance was most consistent with that expected of a ship ready for combat? Bismarck wins hand down! Small wonder Leach used the term "peak efficiency" in his report.

[alecsandros]

But still, my basic points remain...which of the two's actual performance was most consistent with that expected of a ship ready for combat? Bismarck wins hand down! Small wonder Leach used the term "peak efficiency" in his report.

But which ship had functioning radars on board, and which ship was going straight into the waves having her forecastle awash and optics sprayed by sea water ?

How would hiting rate be different if geometry was reversed and all Bismarck's radars failed, while PoW's radar would funciton correctly ?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Paul Cadogan,

you wrote :

Small wonder Leach used the term " peak efficiency " in his report.

Not only Capt Leach utilized the 2 warships ( Bismarck and Prince of Wales ) different " efficiency " situation on that day to justify his decisions.

Capt. Leach did it on June 4th, ... Rear Adm Wake Walker did it on June 5th, 1941 ...

Bye Antonio

[Dave Saxton]

IMHO however, the proof is in the pudding. I don't think anyone anywhere could have asked more of Bismarck and her crew for their performance on the morning of 24th May 1941!

It performed well compared to Hood and POW, but did it perform up to its potential? How much better could it have performed had it had more time to truly train its crew and for the crew to become more familiar with the equipment?

[paulcadogan]

How much better could it have performed had it had more time to truly train its crew and for the crew to become more familiar with the equipment?

I shudder to think!

But which ship had functioning radars on board, and which ship was going straight into the waves having her forecastle awash and optics sprayed by sea water ?

How would hiting rate be different if geometry was reversed and all Bismarck's radars failed, while PoW's radar would funciton correctly ?

But all Bismarck's radars didn't fail. (Apart from the Norfolk incident) Remember I'm talking about actual performance. Still you're right in that PoW's ranging was hampered by the conditions and the inability of her DCT 15 ft. optical RF (which was not affected by spray) to obtain a reliable range. McMullen did the best he could under the conditions and got his battery on target.

We do however have a sort of reverse situation with the evening action though at extreme range. Bismarck could not reply effectively against PoW because of glare from the sea surface and would therefore have been at a disadvantage had PoW been able to press the action. But PoW nevertheless suffered loss of output from 2 guns in A-turret - A-1 and A-3 - after the 5th and 11th salvos respectively. Then in opening fire again later on, A-turret's shell ring jammed with just 2 salvos. The ship remained at high risk for serious output loss had either action been prolonged.

Not only Capt Leach utilized the 2 warships ( Bismarck and Prince of Wales ) different " efficiency " situation on that day to justify his decisions.

Capt. Leach did it on June 4th, ... Rear Adm Wake Walker did it on June 5th, 1941 ...

Antonio, Antonio, Antonio....you don't give up do you! Well what can I say....if you were WW and saw what Bismarck (and PG) did that morning, wouldn't you think the same thing? Remember, the British were not privy to all the problems and setbacks Bismarck had during her work up (and I am NOT denying them).

Bismarck was green and may not have been perfect, but she performed....her performance made her legendary. No denying that.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Paul Cadogan wrote: "But PoW nevertheless suffered loss of output from 2 guns in A-turret - A-1 and A-3 - after the 5th and 11th salvos respectively. "

Hi Paul,
I do think that we have to trust Duncan reconstruction of PoW firing , I have not seen anything better yet (as well as per Antonio's battle distances reconstruction...... ).
PoW A turret only suffered the loss of A1 gun since the beginning of the action. Gun 2 and 4 just lost respectively 2 and 1 shot, they were never out of action. The same happened to Prinz Eugen with the loss of 1 fore gun at the beginning of the battle.

you also wrote: "Bismarck was green and may not have been perfect, but she performed....her performance made her legendary. No denying that."

Right, no doubt. However PoW was even more green and she performed well, hitting within first 3 minutes, hitting 3 times, despite the disadvantage outlined by Alec above. This is the reality, even if authors have tried to "avoid" the debate on the disengagement decision behind the excuse of the "poor performances of PoW gunnery", that is simply an historical false.

Bye, Alberto

[paulcadogan]

I do think that we have to trust Duncan reconstruction of PoW firing , I have not seen anything better yet (as well as per Antonio's battle distances reconstruction...... ).

I was referring to the evening action when PoW engaged Bismarck at 30,000 yards. See the GAR.

(Second Action)
A.1 gun out of action from 5th salvo onwards.
A.3 gun temporarily out of action after 11th salvo.

C - Events subsequent to First Action

During the day in "A" turret, No. 1 central ammunition hoist shell arrestor was driven back with the intention of carrying on without it by ramming cautiously. The gun and cages were then loaded, but owing to the motion of the ship the round in the central ammunition hoist cage slid forward until its nose entered the arrestor, putting the hoist out of action again. Subsequent examination has shown that the anti-surging gear in this cage was stiff and consequently did not re-assert itself after ramming to traverser.

D - Events during the Second Action

"A" Turret

No. 1 gun fired only two salvoes owing to central ammunition hoist being out of action as described above in C, para 1. At salvo 9, No. 3 central ammunition hoist shell arrestor jammed out.

"B" and "Y" Turret

Clean shoot.

A-turret's shell ring jammed during the "third action" when 2 salvos were fired at Bismarck.

F - Third Action

"A" Turret

First Salvo - Shell rammed short into No. 3 central ammunition hoist cage. In trying to remedy this a double ram was made, putting the shell ring out of action. The second shell was hauled back by tackle, clearing the ring. The base of the shell in the central ammunition hoist cage was jamming against the upper edge of the opening in the hoist. This could not be cleared as the central ammunition hoist control lever cold not be put to lower. After much stripping the trouble was located in a link in the control gear which was found to be out of line.

Right, no doubt. However PoW was even more green and she performed well, hitting within first 3 minutes, hitting 3 times. This is the reality, even if authors have tried to "avoid" the debate on the disengagement decision behind the excuse of the poor performances of PoW gunnery, that is simply an historical false.

There is no doubt either that PoW performed well initially, but was far more prone at the time to loss of output from her guns - hence the Vickers Armstrong personnel still being aboard. Did Bismarck have similar civilian dockyard workers aboard her?