Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by alecsandros »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 1:38 pm

In any case all reconstructions done after this, accepted it was a HE shell causing the fire, as logic, because a BS 15" shell would not have exploded at contact with the deck and would have most probably caused more serious damages.


Bye, Alberto
Armor-piercing shots are nearly impossible to "spot" when actually hitting the enemy. What was usually done was counting shell splashes (ex - 4 shots ordered, 2 splashes seen, means something happened with the other 2 ordered shots - either misfired, obtained hits, a mix between them, etc).

A note of mine woudl be that Bismarck probably "hit" HMS Hood on salvo3 , with a hit that passed through the foretop, hit that was only mentioned by British survivors , IIRC (I don't remember seeing mention of this on German accounts).

In this context, my opinion is that the "fire near the aft part of HMS Hood" (fire described by numerous eye wittnesses, including the pilot of the Short Sunderland aircraft which was survelling the area) , was most probably caused by a 203mm HE shell.

Other possibilities present themselves as well, but, as usual, the best approach is to use the phenomenon with the highest density of probability of occurence.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Alec,
I do agree about AP shots counting.

I would just add that the spotting top hit is accounted by Briggs only and only at the Board.
Based on his account (it looks like the hit on the spotting top was told to Briggs by a midshipman (Dundas?) and not witnessed by Briggs himself http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... htm#Briggs and the same Briggs did not repeat the story in his book http://www.hmshood.com/crew/remember/te ... p.htm#Ch20 : I'm a bit suspicious about this hit), the spotting top was hit quite after the boat deck one (Gregson went out to assess the damage and came back into the CP referring to Holland before the spotting top hit is accounted for).

Thus we are back to the problem of the 5 salvos before Hood explosion: were the witnesses counting Bismarck semi-salvos (4 shots) or salvos (4+4, fired very close one to the other)? I would guess they spoke of "full salvos", because of timings, thus 5:57:30 boat deck hit, 5:58:30 spotting top (3rd salvo ?) , 6:00 Hood explosion (5th salvo ?).
Also, how were ranging salvos counted ? There are plenty of still unknown details of the battle....


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by alecsandros »

Clearly so, alot of aspects that are not pinned down.
However, your reconstruction reconciles the most critical aspects, IMHO.

Best,
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 3:55 pm
Alberto Virtuani wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 1:38 pm

In any case all reconstructions done after this, accepted it was a HE shell causing the fire, as logic, because a BS 15" shell would not have exploded at contact with the deck and would have most probably caused more serious damages.


Bye, Alberto
Armor-piercing shots are nearly impossible to "spot" when actually hitting the enemy. What was usually done was counting shell splashes (ex - 4 shots ordered, 2 splashes seen, means something happened with the other 2 ordered shots - either misfired, obtained hits, a mix between them, etc).

A note of mine woudl be that Bismarck probably "hit" HMS Hood on salvo3 , with a hit that passed through the foretop, hit that was only mentioned by British survivors , IIRC (I don't remember seeing mention of this on German accounts).

In this context, my opinion is that the "fire near the aft part of HMS Hood" (fire described by numerous eye wittnesses, including the pilot of the Short Sunderland aircraft which was survelling the area) , was most probably caused by a 203mm HE shell.

Other possibilities present themselves as well, but, as usual, the best approach is to use the phenomenon with the highest density of probability of occurence.
If PoW had exploded instead of Hood we might be speculating that the fire on PoW's boat deck was caused by a 20.3 shell, when, in fact, it was caused by a 38cm shell. There is a wide range of possible scenarios where a 38cm hit could start a fire on the Hood, aft of the funnels.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by alecsandros »

dunmunro wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 5:22 pm
If PoW had exploded instead of Hood we might be speculating that the fire on PoW's boat deck was caused by a 20.3 shell, when, in fact, it was caused by a 38cm shell. There is a wide range of possible scenarios where a 38cm hit could start a fire on the Hood, aft of the funnels.
Hence the closing paragraph from my above reply.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Byron Angel »

Prinz Eugen may or may not have hit Hood around 0557. Jasper described seeing a "bright flash" silhouetting Hood's superstructure from behind whose timing coincided with the fall of one of Prinz Eugen's salvoes, which does suggest that Jasper did not in fact witness the actual hit itself. Even if Prinz Eugen did in fact score a hit, it does not mean the Bismarck did not also hit Hood around the same time. Leach, Rowell, Hunter Terry and the gunnery officer of Hood himself (as related by Briggs) all described a hit at 0557 as having been made by Bismarck.

As for the effect of a 15in AP round and its damage potential, I agree with dunmunro (consider the effect of the non-detonating hit on the bridge of Prince of Wales) and so apparently did the Admiralty's Board of Inquiry conclusion -

4.We consider it established that the third salvo from BISMARCK hit HOOD on the boat deck with at least one shell. Other shell just short from this salvo may have hit her below the water line.

5.The bulk of the evidence shows that HOOD was straddled by the fifth or sixth salvo from BISMARCK, one shell of this salvo apparently hitting her on the boat deck somewhere near the mainmast, and others may have hit her below the waterline. Some witnesses stated that they saw other hits on HOOD above the water line and splashes just short from salvoes just before or after the one referred to at the beginning of this paragraph; although this evidence may not be very reliable, the possibility of further hits cannot be ruled out.

6.There is no very definite evidence of the fall of shot from PRINZ EUGEN, though one salvo was described as falling astern of HOOD.

7.Very shortly after 0555 a fire was observed somewhere on the port after end of the boat deck of HOOD. We consider it established that this fire was caused by a hit from BISMARCK's third salvo. It burned with a clear flame and appeared to spread and then die down. Just before 0600 V.A.C.B.S. hoisted a signal for a further turn of 20 degrees to port together, (the range at the time being about 16300 yards) but it was never executed as at 0600 HOOD blew up and sank in just under 3 minutes.



The Board of Inquiry was of the opinion that Bismarck may have scored at the very least two and possibly as many as 5+ hits upon Hood. I'm really not sure how this has been whittled down to 1 or 2 only - curious. It is IMO dangerous thinking to discard evidence, testimony and expert analysis because it conflicts with a favored theory.


B
Last edited by Byron Angel on Tue May 14, 2019 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by alecsandros »

No, Byron,
if there were multiple visible hits produced by Bismarck, they would have been mentioned, at least sporadically, or at least once, somewhere, by someone. But there isn't nobody to say that.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Byron Angel »

One other item – a 38cm hit upon the Boat Deck at 17-18,000m would have involved an angle of fall of approximately 13.4 degrees, which implies that (disallowing any highly unusual deviation in the path of the projectile) the horizontal component of its path through the ship would have had to have been about 80+ feet in order to reach armored deck level. Considering that this hit was said to have struck on the disengaged port side at an angle of about 50deg off the bow, it is not clear to me how this could have been achieved. Unless my geometry/trigonometry skills have deteriorated badly over the years, my belief is that the boat deck hit (if indeed a dud) must have exited through the port side of the ship.

FWIW.

B
Last edited by Byron Angel on Tue May 14, 2019 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Byron Angel »

alecsandros wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 6:59 pm No, Byron,
if there were multiple visible hits produced by Bismarck, they would have been mentioned, at least sporadically, or at least once, somewhere, by someone. But there isn't nobody to say that.

I most profoundly disagree, Alecs. The italicized portion of my above post was taken verbatim from the formal conclusions of the Admiralty Board of Inquiry.

Please read for yourself the entire witness testimony given before the board; numerous witnesses stated having seen additional hits. However the board chose to take a very conservative position, formally crediting only those hits which could be incontrovertibly validated by multiple witness testimonies - the Board stated as much in its concluding remarks, but they also stated that, based upon the overall body of witness accounts that it was likely to highly likely that additional hits had been made by Bismarck.

Read the Board of Inquiry remarks and do your own count of definitely affirmed hits and possible/likely hits. I'm not making this stuff up.

B
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
"The Board of Inquiry was of the opinion that Bismarck may have scored at the very least two and possibly as many as 5+ hits upon Hood. I'm really not sure how this has been whittled down to 1 or 2 only - curious. "
The problem is that no other hit than the boat deck one and the "final" one are confirmed by more than one single person.... All the others, like the spotting top hit (that is accounted only by Briggs, but is lately "forgotten" in his book and not seen from PoW by anyone) or the hit at the base of the bridges (only accounted by Tilburn).

Do you have any example of a hit "confirmed" by more than one witness ? Please post it.

The explanation is very simple, there were ammunitions exploding on the boat deck and many of the explosions could have been misinterpreted as Bismarck (or PG) hits by Hood and/or PoW people.


"There is a wide range of possible scenarios where a 38cm hit could start a fire on the Hood, aft of the funnels...…
As for the effect of a 15in AP round and its damage potential, I agree with...."
Sure!
Schneider was so (un)lucky to hit the crane of PoW (only reason why the 15" shell exploded over the deck) after having hit the crane of Hood too ! A sniper !
How many probability had a 15" shell to find on his path against the deck a heavy, robust and tall enough structure to fuse it and causing its detonation before reaching the deck? How many probabilities to find such an obstacle twice in 5 minutes?




It's quite comical to see how the need to "fabricate" more Bismarck hits is now becoming impellent, due to a comparison (download/file.php?id=3461) that conflicts with a favored theory (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&p=83548#p83542).
Please note that I have attributed to Bismarck 5 hits already (instead of the sure 4), thus 2 against Hood, just to be "fair" enough...


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 9:22 pm Hello everybody,
"The Board of Inquiry was of the opinion that Bismarck may have scored at the very least two and possibly as many as 5+ hits upon Hood. I'm really not sure how this has been whittled down to 1 or 2 only - curious. "
The problem is that no other hit than the boat deck one and the "final" one are confirmed by more than one single person.... All the others, like the spotting top hit (that is accounted only by Briggs, but is lately "forgotten" in his book and not seen from PoW by anyone) or the hit at the base of the bridges (only accounted by Tilburn).

Do you have any example of a hit "confirmed" by more than one witness ? Please post it.

The explanation is very simple, there were ammunitions exploding on the boat deck and many of the explosions could have been misinterpreted as Bismarck (or PG) hits by Hood and/or PoW people.


"There is a wide range of possible scenarios where a 38cm hit could start a fire on the Hood, aft of the funnels...…
As for the effect of a 15in AP round and its damage potential, I agree with...."
Sure!
Schneider was so (un)lucky to hit the crane of PoW (only reason why the 15" shell exploded over the deck) after having hit the crane of Hood too ! A sniper !
How many probability had a 15" shell to find on his path against the deck a heavy, robust and tall enough structure to fuse it and causing its detonation before reaching the deck? How many probabilities to find such an obstacle twice in 5 minutes?




It's quite comical to see how the need to "fabricate" more Bismarck hits is now becoming impellent, due to a comparison (download/file.php?id=3461) that conflicts with a favored theory (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&p=83548#p83542).
Please note that I have attributed to Bismarck 5 hits already (instead of the sure 4), thus 2 against Hood, just to be "fair" enough...


Bye, Alberto
No one is fabricating anything. A 38cm hit could strike any number of things that would cause it to detonate at the upper deck level, or just below it to create a cordite fire amongst the 4in or UP ammunition. Likely suspects would be the platforms around the funnels, the 4in or pom-pom gun mounting or zarabaras around them. Additionally, the shell could strike the ship's side or upper deck and detonate below the upper deck to start a cordite fire via splinters, finally a 38cm shell would probably ignite any ammunition locker if it simply passed through the locker, even without detonating. The members of the BofI were experienced naval officers and well aware of the potential for AP shells to cause damage above decks.
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Bill Jurens »

In the case of Denmark Strait action were are -- to take a simple metaphor -- confronted with a small collection of LEGO blocks of knowledge, that we know represents a rather small sample taken from a much larger set, and which we know may include a few odd blocks from other sets as well. It is not surprising that -- particularly when the characteristics of the overall object to be assembled is not entirely known -- that different experimenters will -- aiming at a different final product and picking and supplementing their LEGO blocks in somewhat different ways, may end up with constructions of considerably different geometry.

Which of the alternative reconstructions represents most clearly what was printed on the original box will, in most cases, be open to considerable conjecture and uncertainty.

We see the past as a young child sees the present...

Bill Jurens
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Byron Angel »

"The problem is that no other hit than the boat deck one and the "final" one are confirmed by more than one single person.... All the others, like the spotting top hit (that is accounted only by Briggs, but is lately "forgotten" in his book and not seen from PoW by anyone) or the hit at the base of the bridges (only accounted by Tilburn)."


..... This is actually an incorrect statement. Please re-read the Board of Inquiry testimonies by the officers and crew of Prince of Wales. Several mentioned fall of shot amidships very close aboard Hood's starboard side; another witness alludes to having seen a hit at the base of Hood's forward superstructure It is, IMO, unwise to dismiss the observations and commentary of those experienced naval officers (and presumably their staff) entrusted with the investigation into Hood's loss.

B
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
"The members of the BofI were experienced naval officers"
...and Schmundt was an experienced flag officer who, having critically read the German reports, accepted the PG KTB claim of the hit (http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/pg003.html).

Schmalenbach (download/file.php?id=3516) is clear enough and the bright flash points to a HE light shell (no other damage came to the CP of Hood after the hit from the vitals of the ship).

I repeat, how many probability had a 15" AP shell to find on his path against the deck a heavy, robust and tall enough structure (you need 80 feets travel before exploding after the hit, therefore no 4" mount, no low structures, only the crane or the mast) to fuse it and to cause its detonation before reaching (or in contact with) the deck to start a fire? How many probabilities for Schneider to hit such an obstacle twice in 4 minutes on two different ships ? Answer please...

Also, give me an example of a (serious...) author/expert who attributes the boat deck hit to Bismarck, despite the Board, from Grenfell till today....


"Please re-read the Board of Inquiry testimonies by the officers and crew of Prince of Wales"
Please post examples, I have listed (and doubted about) Briggs (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... htm#Briggs) and Tilburn (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... tm#Tilburn) and explained why PoW crew was unable to distinguish between hits and ammunition exploding, due to the fire on the boat deck.
Please provide names and references, please. Generic statements (even the ones from the Board) count nothing.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Wed May 15, 2019 7:31 am, edited 5 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Herr Nilsson »

@all

I lost track again:

1.)
Herr Nilsson wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 1:55 pm
Alberto Virtuani wrote: Tue May 14, 2019 1:38 pm
"Schmalenbach speculates. Brinkmann's signature just means he has read it. Schmundt wasn't there, etc.etc….."
….What doesn't fit will be made to fit (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=76796&hilit= ... fit#p76796).…

Means what?
I still don't understand what Alberto is trying to tell us here?

2.) What's the purpose of this discussion at all?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Post Reply