PoW readiness for active service

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "I'm sorry but I don't see any evidence presented in the link above"

It's just your problem.


If you prefer to speculate (based on nothing at all) that Bismarck fired very slowly (1,6 salvo / minute) just to ensure her an almost perfect output, again your problem. It will just make PoW gunnery performance even more astonishing in terms of RoF and Leach decision even more debatable...

A pity however that you will never be able to reconstruct the battle with such an assumption of 96 ordered shots, for the reasons explained here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&p=83312&hilit=11+salvos#p83312), to which you are carefully not answering at all...

you wrote: "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. "

...but unfortunately for you, you have just argued wrong, because we have the photografic (photo+film) evidences pointing to Bismarck having ordered at least 44 shots after 6:03... Therefore, following your speculation, Bismarck would have fired very slowly in the critical interval from 5:58 till 6:02...Try again...

you wrote: "she might have been firing two gun salvos towards the end of the action"

No she might not. At the end of the action Bismarck was sailing again a course between 220° and 200° (depending on the solution to the last problem left open by Antonio Bonomi before he was forced to leave the forum viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424). No chance her aft turrets could be wooded later than 6:05 /6:06.



I see you have no clue how the battle developed and I'm tired to have to explain you everything again and again just to hear denials. You would be better taking a pause instead of posting such nonsense (and I use a kind word, not a term much more adapted, as a friend of you used here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&p=83326&hilit=rubbish#p83326 showing his lack of respect).


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

...but unfortunately for you, you have just argued wrong, because we have the photografic (photo+film) evidences pointing to Bismarck having ordered at least 44 shots after 6:03... Try again...

Unfortunately we have no time stamp on those images and film, but you say you have evidence for 44 rounds fired so there must be photographic evidence of missing rnds and/or salvos? Perhaps you can indicate which photos show evidence of lost output?

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "Unfortunately we have no time stamp on those images and film"

Yes we have, thanks to Antonio's reconstruction and the demonstration is available on this forum. You have nothing at all....but still insist...

Reconstruct your own battle using 96 shots and, please, come back only when you have a credible theory: Good Luck !


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "Unfortunately we have no time stamp on those images and film"

Yes we have, thanks to Antonio's reconstruction and the demonstration is available on this forum. You have nothing at all....but still insist...

Please reconstruct the battle using 96 shots and come back when you have a credible theory: Good Luck !


Bye, Alberto

93 shots were actually fired according to Bismarck's radio message so this seems to suggest that some of the film and photos purporting to show 44 rnds after 0603 actually show earlier phases of the battle. However can you point which photos or film segments show evidence for lost output?

[pgollin]

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.

.

So you agree that Alberto should comply with the obligations imposed by using the Churchill Archive and publish the reference of the Vickers letter.

Thank-you.

.

[dunmunro]

...but unfortunately for you, you have just argued wrong, because we have the photografic (photo+film) evidences pointing to Bismarck having ordered at least 44 shots after 6:03... Therefore, following your speculation, Bismarck would have fired very slowly in the critical interval from 5:58 till 6:02...Try again...

Regarding Bismarck's RoF. You are claiming that Bismarck only fired 49 rounds from open fire to 0603 or 49 rounds over 8 or 10 minutes including the destruction of the Hood and scoring three hits on PoW from 0600-0602 with only 10-12 rounds fired? Bismarck was therefore achieving a 25-30% hit rate on PoW during that timeframe. In another 5 minutes Bismarck could have been expected to fire another 25 to 30 rnds, even at this glacially slow RoF (in defiance of KM gunnery doctrine), and score 6 to 9 x 38cm hits alone, and at a range well inside PoW's immune zone. If PE could score at even half that rate, we could expect another ~60 rounds of 20.3 cm fire and another ~9 x 20.3 cm hits. We could also expect ~100 rnds of 15cm fire and 6 x 15cm hits, and ignoring the hundreds of potential 10.2cm rnds, PoW could only reply with ~30 rnds of 14in fire (in the unlikely event that her main armament did not suffer more breakdowns or direct hits on turrets or FC directors) and the likelihood of only ~2 x 14in hits on Bismarck in return. Yet some claim Leach was a coward for opening the range...

[Bill Jurens]

Although the debate has been heated lately, it remains (barely) within acceptable limits, and I will let it continue in the hopes that at least some progress will be made towards a resolution.

As moderator, I must take exception to Mr. Virtuani's commentary that Mr. Bonomi was, in his words "... forced to leave the forum". It is correct that Mr. Bonomi was banned for a twenty four hour period, but he was specifically invited to return to the discussions thereafter, and apparently chose not to do so. The only way a participant can in any realistic sense be 'forced to leave the forum' would be for both moderators, i.e. Mr. Rico and myself, to impose a permanent ban on his (or, I suppose, her...) postings. Insofar as that was not done, and was not even contemplated, I think it fairer to say that -- for reasons which are his own -- Mr. Bonomi 'chose not to return to the forum'.

I have, from time to time, voluntarily chosen to withdraw from various forums over the years, usually to return after things had cooled down a bit. But I never felt that I was in any way 'forced' to leave. I just chose to leave. As I, sometimes reluctantly, choose to stay...

Bill Jurens

[northcape]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "Unfortunately we have no time stamp on those images and film"

Yes we have, thanks to Antonio's reconstruction and the demonstration is available on this forum. You have nothing at all....but still insist...

Reconstruct your own battle using 96 shots and, please, come back only when you have a credible theory: Good Luck !


Bye, Alberto

No it is not a time stamp. It is a theory. Whether it is considered as "credible" or not is only a subjective interpretation of the observer, given the lack of error estimates and the non-scientific approach of the map reconstruction.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Bill Jurens wrote: "The only way a participant can in any realistic sense be 'forced to leave the forum' would be for both moderators, i.e. Mr. Rico and myself, to impose a permanent ban on his (or, I suppose, her...) postings."

No. It was for both the moderators to act in such a way to protect only one side, forcing a member to leave because there is no fairness anymore.
Therefore I insist that Mr.Bonomi has been forced to leave the forum, and I add that this was the most sad event here, where insulting and provoking people are allowed to stay despite their behavior, while a great contributor to the discussion has been forced to leave (even if this term annoys you).

Dunmunro wrote: "can you point which photos or film segments show evidence for lost output?"

No I can't, as well as you cannot point at any photo/film segment showing evidence for perfect shooting (nobody can distinguish from the flash whether there are 3 or 4 guns firing, even two adjacent turrets may be difficult to be distinguished at times....).

However the battle development, the photografic evidence and all accounts point to Bismarck having fired in more or less "metronomic" way, without any pause or significant slow down, even when turning. You have nothing at all to support the 96 ordered shots. So sorry for that.

Therefore your "theory" (I should call it "denial", because you have no complete scenario, thus no theory to support...) is simply wrong.

Northcape wrote: "No it is not a time stamp. It is a theory."

Yes, the only credible and complete theory that puts together all evidences and demonstrates without any doubt when the photos/film were caught (please see here for a summary demonstartion about film start time being precisely timed (almost as per time stamp...) viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82759&hilit=railings#p82759 and please come back only if you have something different to propose, not only to deny: afaik, no answer to this post).

When a better reconstruction will be presented, we will confront and judge, for the time being, inconvenient as it can be, Antonio's reconstruction is the one any logical person should accept.




As usual, speaking of different things, we are forgetting the (apparently inconvenient for someone) thread topic related to PoW readiness (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=195#p83200) and to the linked need of Adm.Tovey to invent some justification for Leach (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=270#p83344).
A pity that always, when without arguments, people ask questions and then.. leave the discussion without acknowledging the facts...


Bye, Alberto

[Bill Jurens]

The level of discussion has deteriorated to the state that I have, with some reluctance, chosen to lock this topic, letting existing commentary remain to stand on its own merit. Should it reopen in another form, which I suspect it will, users continuing to post offensive and inflammatory commentary can expect to be banned.

Bill Jurens