PoW readiness for active service

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: " Both Forward HADTs were knocked out by the hit forward and the 38cm hit to the funnel knocked out the after starboard HADT via splinters."

No, one was knocked out, the other just temporarily jammed (no damage whatsoever was found subsequently and this is stated in the official damage report) while the aft directors were perfectly functioning, just a earphone was cut by a splinter and crew affected by splinters and smoke. No damage to any apparatus.

The three aforementioned directors were knocked out (disabled) and unable to perform their function of providing FC to the 5.25in guns from ~0558 onward.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote "The three aforementioned directors were knocked out (disabled) and unable to perform their function of providing FC to the 5.25in guns from ~0558 onward."

Only 1 director was damaged, another temporarily jammed.
That they could not provide range, is a different story. It was the same for the main 14" director not able to direct fire due to turn away and smoke... We speak battle damages not battle difficulties here.


Anyway, the key point is that:

it is enough to read the two reports (May 30 (download/file.php?id=3508) and Despatches (download/file.php?id=3507)) to see that intentionally embellishments were added to justify Leach.

(the "errors" in the despatches) are all in the direction to incorrectly justify Leach decision, supporting the false idea that PoW could not continue the engagement (especially turret Y jam that is the heavyweight to say that Leach had no choice) and to provide a better story (6:13, 13 minutes alone fighting against Bismarck). What is needed more to prove the intentional alteration of facts for a clear purpose ? I guess we will never find the "confession" of Tovey...

but I see it's easier to speak about details and quibbling over words. A strategy that only shows the lack of any argument.


Bye, Alberto

[northcape]

No one mentioned a CM.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=78298&hilit=31st+May#p78298

"If someone writes "I will not submit any B of I or C M [...] concerning Wake-Walker", it means somebody else requested it ... "

What you are doing is simply a manipulation of facts.

You quote "If someone writes "I will not submit any B of I or C M [...] concerning Wake-Walker", it means somebody else requested it ... "

However, the original quote you refer to is

"I will not submit any B of I concerning Wake-Walker / Leach, but will only be okay with a BoI or CM against myself".

There is explixit mentioning of BoI against WW/Leach, but no mentioning of a CM against them. Opposed to what you state.

I myself don't care the slightest what has happened in the Admirality and above/beyond almost 80 years ago, but as anywhere (in particular on the internet) I am a bit allergic to twisting of facts / subtle and not-so-subtle manipulation in order to support a specific theory. Apologies if there is moer information I'm not aware of, but this reference and your quotation simply don't add up.

[alecsandros]

The three aforementioned directors were knocked out (disabled) and unable to perform their function of providing FC to the 5.25in guns from ~0558 onward.

In a battleship battle, the secondary guns were of minor importance.

[dunmunro]

The three aforementioned directors were knocked out (disabled) and unable to perform their function of providing FC to the 5.25in guns from ~0558 onward.

In a battleship battle, the secondary guns were of minor importance.

I wonder why Bismarck, Rodney, and KGV expended so many secondary rounds against each other and PoW?

A battleship's FC directors are vulnerable to even 4.1in hits and a 4.5in hit was thought to have knocked out one of Gneisenau's forward 28cm turrets at Lofoten. PE's war diary states that Bismarck appeared to be scoring hits with her 5.9in guns but regardless a 5.9in AP or HE hit could have replicated much of the damage that was attributed to PE's 20.3cm guns.

[alecsandros]

It is of minor importace, and rhettorics won't save you here , as it hadn't anywhere else.

Battleship combat is determined by the main guns, and Prince of Wales had 9 in operation at the time of her disengagement (versus Bismarck's 8).

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Alec,

you wrote: "Prince of Wales had 9 in operation at the time of her disengagement (versus Bismarck's 8)."

With respect, I would say "vs. Bismarck possibly 8": we don't know (and we will possibly never know) how many guns were in action on board of Bismarck at the end of action. We know only 7 were in action on board Prinz Eugen, and despite attempts to say that Bismarck fired slowly but perfectly, the most probable ordered shot for Bismarck are 104 to 112... thus it is well possible that Bismarck experienced a gun unavailability as well as PoW and PG. The alternative would be a number of unknown minor failures.


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

It is of minor importace, and rhettorics won't save you here , as it hadn't anywhere else.

Battleship combat is determined by the main guns, and Prince of Wales had 9 in operation at the time of her disengagement (versus Bismarck's 8).

I gave you an example where a 4.5in gun knocked out a 28cm gun turret and that was not a minor event.

Battleship combat depends on their FC systems and this is their Achilles heel, as these systems are very vulnerable even to light guns. Consequently battleships become vulnerable during close range actions to guns which are much smaller than those which can nominally destroy them.

Bismarck had 8 x 38cm guns, 6 x 15cm guns (per side) and 6 x 10.2cm guns; PE had 8 x 20.3cm guns and 6 x 10.2cm guns for a total of 34 guns firing well over 100 rnds/min at PoW.

[dunmunro]

Hi Alec,

you wrote: "Prince of Wales had 9 in operation at the time of her disengagement (versus Bismarck's 8)."

With respect, I would say "vs. Bismarck possibly 8": we don't know (and we will possibly never know) how many guns were in action on board of Bismarck at the end of action. We know only 7 were in action on board Prinz Eugen, and despite attempts to say that Bismarck fired slowly but perfectly, the most probable ordered shot for Bismarck are 104 to 112... thus it is well possible that Bismarck experienced a gun unavailability as well as PoW and PG. The alternative would be a number of unknown minor failures.


Bye, Alberto

Show us evidence for your claims about Bismarck's 38cm output.

[alecsandros]

Show us evidence for your claims about Bismarck's 38cm output.

Duncan,
this type of requests 'show us the evidence', etc, is not polite and not in line with what is going on the forum.
I suggest you take a look at my historical posts (and everybody else's) about the uncertainty of Bismarck's output, and in the mean time let's get back to the subject topic.

[alecsandros]

I gave you an example where a 4.5in gun knocked out a 28cm gun turret and that was not a minor event.

It was not a minor event, but it was an isolated incident, produced by the huge consumption of ammo that Renown did that day (over 800 x 102mm shots fired).

[pgollin]

Duncan,
this type of requests 'show us the evidence', etc, is not polite and not in line with what is going on the forum.
I suggest you take a look at my historical posts (and everybody else's) about the uncertainty of Bismarck's output, and in the mean time let's get back to the subject topic.

Oh dear, you have begun to echo Alberto's line that only HE is allowed to decide who gives out information !

The "forum" works on the exchange of information, not on some people deciding that they may withhold due information (i.e. the archive reference of quoted documents as required by the rules of use of that archive) whereas they may demand information from others.

.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "Show us evidence for your claims about Bismarck's 38cm output."

I did already several times (e.g. last time viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&p=83312&hilit=11+salvos#p83312...) but if you don't want to see any evidence, it's a waste of time to "show" you anything.

You (and the above "provocations author", that the moderator should finally stop...) have not shown any evidence, reconstruction or anything else supporting the speculation that Bismarck ordered only 96 shots... but you still insist in your wrong statements... Amen.


Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

The "forum" works on the exchange of information, not on some people deciding that they may withhold due information (i.e. the archive reference of quoted documents as required by the rules of use of that archive) whereas they may demand information from others.

.

The "forum" works like any human civilization does ,
based on everyones qualities and merits, that, in this instance, can only be known - for the vast majority of us - through the written language (English in this case), that everyone is using to formulate arguments.

Therefore, the capacity of everyone to use the written word, and to keep their word, and to respect others, is paramount to the functioning of this site.

Do not insist over this, you know very well why.

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "Show us evidence for your claims about Bismarck's 38cm output."

I did already several times (e.g. last time viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&p=83312&hilit=11+salvos#p83312...) but if you don't want to see any evidence, it's a waste of time to "show" you anything.

You (and the above "provocations author", that the moderator should finally stop...) have not shown any evidence, reconstruction or anything else supporting the speculation that Bismarck ordered only 96 shots... but you still insist in your wrong statements... Amen.


Bye, Alberto

I don't think asking you to provide evidence to support your contentions is rude or provocative.

I'm sorry but I don't see any evidence presented in the link above. I do see you speculating about Bismarck's output just as I have. However, as I've pointed out in the past there is no historical (post war memoirs, PE War Diary, Bismarck Radio messages, wartime interrogation of survivors, etc) source that states that Bismarck had a loss of output, so again the only clue is that the number of rounds fired is an odd rather than even number. As I've pointed out in the past PE lost 13 rounds due to individual gun failures and 14 rounds due to turret (2 gun) failures. Her output from individual gun failures alone would have been ~93%. We have no photographic evidence for any turret failures on Bismarck at DS yet we have a fair photographic sampling of her salvos fired.

I have argued that Bismarck's RoF was higher during the opening minutes of the action and probably peaked from ~0558-0602 and then declined sharply. There is some, admittedly sparse, evidence for this but it was KM battleship gunnery doctrine to increase the RoF when a good FC solution was acquired.

Regarding the 93 rounds fired by Bismarck, we also have to bear in mind that she might have been firing two gun salvos towards the end of the action, if, like PE, her A arcs were closed, and thus we have the possibility of ~99% output (93/94) along with the possibility of ~97% output (93/96) but really all we can do is speculate.