More on KGV Class main armament problems

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:47 am

Hello everybody,
"And what if Bismarck fired in local control in the later stages of the action?"
as said here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7736#p72356) everybody is free to imagine whatever he wants, even that Bismarck fired in local control based on far observation...
... even that the decoration to Schneider was given postumously, as a hit from PoW had killed him, forcing the local control because Albrecht and the Baron were sleeping during the battle (a pity that no German account speak about such facts, that the Baron would have surely been aware of... possibly a cover-up !...).

I'm curious to see such a full reconstruction, presented in a credible form, tough...


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)

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Herr Nilsson » Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:22 am

The crucial point is we don't know anything about Bismarck's GAR...but obviously something remarkable has happened towards the end of the action.
Regards

Marc

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

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

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by alecsandros » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:33 am

Herr Nilsson wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:00 am
And what if Bismarck fired in local control in the later stages of the action?
Towards the end of the morning action, guns in a group were definitely observed to "ripple" as if one or more turrets were in gunlayers' firing.
Marc,
the ripple effect was probably an effect of firing while using the Seitenvorzündwerk.

This is my opinion.

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

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by alecsandros » Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:37 am

Herr Nilsson wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:22 am
The crucial point is we don't know anything about Bismarck's GAR...but obviously something remarkable has happened towards the end of the action.
Again, my opinion: enemy target (PoW) was completely shrouded in chemical smoke, therefore firing was done by using radar only (similar to Hipper against Glowworm one year before). Enemy target bearing was rapidly changing due to the non-linear movement that PoW was adopting. Therefore continuous alterations of the fire control solution were required, triggering continuous movements of main turrets (rotation) and elevation of main barrels. As we know, each of the 8 guns had a different firing solution calculated for it, and fired on a specific time, independent from the other 7.

more info here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752#p53326

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:04 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Now we have drifted off again into imaginary Bismarck firing regimes.
will not change what crude figures (not a biased mathematical distortion,
What is actually lacking is enough data to provide any worthwhile analysis. It is not the figures that are crude, since they don't exist in sufficient numbers, but merely the analysis.

I hope readers will indulge a longer post. These are engineering matters which can be discussed and comprehended, and are surely less wearing than lengthy theoretical extrapolations of what such and such shell might do against a particular armour at such and such range when combat shows it was largely unpredictable.

Barben's explanation requires that despite the shell ring being full (16 shells) and there being no need for the vertically-sliding flash protection doors between shell room and shell ring to be open, they are open, allowing yet another shell to slide uncontrollably forward into the boundary between the fixed structure and the rotating ring because of operator failure. The doors close off four circular ports through which the shells pass from shell room to shell ring. In the shell room four fixed waiting troughs/trays take the shells as they are deposited by overhead grab. Power rammers are required to push the shells forwards into the shell ring. The "hinged or bridging trays" according to Peter Hodges diagram, are on the periphery of the shell ring, ie inboard of the flash protection doors. Presumably they are hinged so they move to an upright position once the shell has moved across it onto the ring proper, like a wagon entering a castle over a medieval drawbridge. Once the shell has entered the ring, the hinge trays come up, protected presumably by anti-surge stops that prevent the shell sliding either forwards or backwards. When the ring has rotated and positioned the loaded tray correctly, rammers push the shell forward into the cages to be lifted to the gun house.

To me in is unimaginable that the forward surging stops in the waiting tray are not interlocked to the flash door opening and the power rammer. There would no point in enabling a crew member to release the stops before the door is clear and for flash protection (remembering Jutland), the door must be shut as soon as a shell is loaded. The anti-surge stops are supposed to be designed precisely to stop a shell moving uncontrollably in a seaway, and therefore whatever Leach does with the helm this accident is not his fault.

On the other hand Godding's explanation makes far more sense, with an equipment failure, ie inadequately-strong and therefore sheared shell rear anti-surge stops allowing the shell to slide back, pushing the hinged trays down and impacting parts of the fixed structure. The only query is why this would cause "mayhem" in the shell handling rooms, the hinged trays are on the far side of the flash doors. The reason for not moving the shell ring is presumably that brave men must climb into this space to clear the damaged hinged trays and further movement might cause further damage.

Whichever explanation is nearer to the truth, the witholding of that part of Barben's material not supplied to Dunmunro and might hold clues is indefensible. If the failure actually happened at salvo 20 and there were 3 accessible quadrants of the shell ring loaded with 12 shells, why didn't Alywin, who is theorised to be making excellent LC shooting, according to A & A 's photo anaylsis, just keep going until the Cease Fire order?

Maybe the problems described happened earlier, and manifested themselves at salvo 20.

Having seen Mr Jurens expounding on shell handling aboard USS Texas in a recent documentary (I got my hat there too) maybe he can provide some further insight.

All the best

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

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:58 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:47 am
... even that the decoration to Schneider was given postumously, as a hit from PoW had killed him,

..... Which hit was that exactly?

B

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Fri Jun 28, 2019 3:02 pm

Fellow Contributors,

I too find that some posters no longer delineate between outright fantasy and what they assert to be real.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:27 pm

Hello everybody,

who started the "fantasies" cannot complain now about answering ironically (to statement like "Bismack opened fire two minutes before PG" or ""Bismarck fired the last salvos under local control", or "PG firm shows shell splashes from Hood", or "Bismack turned on 270° course at 05:55", or "Bismarck never turned at all"): I have already suggested to move such scenarios to the "hypothetical scenarios" section on this forum, because they are unable to insert these statements in a coherent, credible overall reconstruction of the battle, or because they are not supported enough to allow any serious discussion.

As these statements are repeated (from time to time), please let me use my own free fantasy as well...



However,
Wadinga wrote (once again...) "the witholding of that part of Barben's material not supplied to Dunmunro and might hold clues is indefensible."
Enough is enough! What is indefensible is this attitude of neverending provocation (in every post, on every thread since a week, even on Matapan topic...).


I formally ask the "moderator" of this forum to finally show up, to ask to this member to stop immediately to provoke and (possibly) to ban him for a while...


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)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:10 pm

Fellow Contributors,

I believe earlier in this very thread Mr Jurens said he could not see what was to be gained from withholding material from these reports.
I am a bit confused about Mr. Virtuani's statements along the lines of "All the records will be released and published in a couple of years..." etc.

Why not just release them now, use the evidence to demolish your detractors, and establish your credibility as we speak?

An argument may be made, I suppose, that withholding the records in some way increases the commercial value of an upcoming book, etc., but I don't think that's very likely.
Enough is enough! What is indefensible is this attitude of neverending provocation
Mr Virtuani Would Mr Jurens' post be never-ending provoking as well? It were he might have to ban himself. Please stop with these "formal" protests. If you choose to hide information from interested parties, own it. Proudly say you are withholding information.

Returning to the design of PoW's loading system and p 149/259 reproduced above, Tovey's report it says on her Y turret the watertight doors from the shell room had to be kept shut to stop the shell sliding from the waiting trays into the shell ring space. So the anti-surge device Barben says was mistakenly "released" in a drill error did not apparently exist. In KG V they had to use the doors to stop the shell sliding about and she was not steering the way PoW had to.

According to Godding the final thing that stopped PoW shooting was the failure
Now the central hoist cage had problems.
Unlike the shell ring workaround this is the hoist taking the shells to the guns. There is no workaround. That plus the broken hinge trays means Y turret is out of action for hours.

No wonder Tovey said
The loss of output in PoW's case might have been much greater had it not been for the energetic measures taken to remedy defects before, during and between the different engagements.
When all this information sees the light of day there is a lot of interesting detail to be found out.

All the best

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

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by HMSVF » Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:53 pm

wadinga wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:10 pm
Fellow Contributors,

I believe earlier in this very thread Mr Jurens said he could not see what was to be gained from withholding material from these reports.
I am a bit confused about Mr. Virtuani's statements along the lines of "All the records will be released and published in a couple of years..." etc.

Why not just release them now, use the evidence to demolish your detractors, and establish your credibility as we speak?

An argument may be made, I suppose, that withholding the records in some way increases the commercial value of an upcoming book, etc., but I don't think that's very likely.
Enough is enough! What is indefensible is this attitude of neverending provocation
Mr Virtuani Would Mr Jurens' post be never-ending provoking as well? It were he might have to ban himself. Please stop with these "formal" protests. If you choose to hide information from interested parties, own it. Proudly say you are withholding information.

Returning to the design of PoW's loading system and p 149/259 reproduced above, Tovey's report it says on her Y turret the watertight doors from the shell room had to be kept shut to stop the shell sliding from the waiting trays into the shell ring space. So the anti-surge device Barben says was mistakenly "released" in a drill error did not apparently exist. In KG V they had to use the doors to stop the shell sliding about and she was not steering the way PoW had to.

According to Godding the final thing that stopped PoW shooting was the failure
Now the central hoist cage had problems.
Unlike the shell ring workaround this is the hoist taking the shells to the guns. There is no workaround. That plus the broken hinge trays means Y turret is out of action for hours.

No wonder Tovey said
The loss of output in PoW's case might have been much greater had it not been for the energetic measures taken to remedy defects before, during and between the different engagements.
When all this information sees the light of day there is a lot of interesting detail to be found out.

All the best

wadinga


:clap: :clap: :clap:

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:16 am

Hello everybody,
"Please stop with these "formal" protests."
No, I won't.
I formally insist that the "moderator" goes back into this week posts from Mr.Wadinga to see the neverending provocation and stop him, else I will answer Mr.Wadinga as he deserves!
I hope to get an answer from Mr.Jurens (not being interested in Mr.Wadinga comments).
Mr.Wadinga and Mr.Jurens have already expresseed their view about the document that I cannot show them, I have answered and this should be the end of the story, especially when someone here was able to say that ADM 205/10 contained no relevant info re. the regrettable aftermath of the DS, trying (without succcess, thanks to Antonio's expensive trip to Kew) to "withold" much more important information...


All this interesting discussion about the shell ring jamming or fouling or even the central hoist cage failure where is this info coming from to Godding? Was he on board?) has anyway NOTHING to do with PoW reported and compared RoF (download/file.php?id=3463), as McMullen and Leach agreed that the only meaningful calculation of her RoF should be based on the interval 05:53-06:02 only, before the Captain decision to retreat with a hard 160° turn to port at full speed under smoke, as logical to any reasonable open-minded person...


Thanks anyway to Mr:Wadinga for implicitly accepting now all the other points (PG film timing and Bismarck firing) he had wrongly raised (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=255#p84147), even after this long attempt to change topic and to have them quickly forgotten. A good step forward.


HMSVF "commented" (to use a very nice word): " :clap: :clap: :clap: "
As emoticons are now allowed, after having been banned, here my answer to him: :kaput:


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)

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by paul.mercer » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:36 am

Hi Alberto,
You wrote:
. even that the decoration to Schneider was given postumously, as a hit from PoW had killed him, forcing the local control because Albrecht and the Baron were sleeping during the battle (a pity that no German account speak about such facts, that the Baron would have surely been aware of... possibly a cover-up !...).
I find it difficult to believe that two people were 'sleeping' during the battle, surely 'action stations' would have been sounded as soon as the RN ships appeared on the horizon, which would mean that all the crew whether on duty or not would be at their battle stations?

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by HMSVF » Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:46 am

wadinga wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:10 pm
Fellow Contributors,

I believe earlier in this very thread Mr Jurens said he could not see what was to be gained from withholding material from these reports.
I am a bit confused about Mr. Virtuani's statements along the lines of "All the records will be released and published in a couple of years..." etc.

Why not just release them now, use the evidence to demolish your detractors, and establish your credibility as we speak?

An argument may be made, I suppose, that withholding the records in some way increases the commercial value of an upcoming book, etc., but I don't think that's very likely.
Enough is enough! What is indefensible is this attitude of neverending provocation
Mr Virtuani Would Mr Jurens' post be never-ending provoking as well? It were he might have to ban himself. Please stop with these "formal" protests. If you choose to hide information from interested parties, own it. Proudly say you are withholding information.

Returning to the design of PoW's loading system and p 149/259 reproduced above, Tovey's report it says on her Y turret the watertight doors from the shell room had to be kept shut to stop the shell sliding from the waiting trays into the shell ring space. So the anti-surge device Barben says was mistakenly "released" in a drill error did not apparently exist. In KG V they had to use the doors to stop the shell sliding about and she was not steering the way PoW had to.

According to Godding the final thing that stopped PoW shooting was the failure
Now the central hoist cage had problems.
Unlike the shell ring workaround this is the hoist taking the shells to the guns. There is no workaround. That plus the broken hinge trays means Y turret is out of action for hours.

No wonder Tovey said
The loss of output in PoW's case might have been much greater had it not been for the energetic measures taken to remedy defects before, during and between the different engagements.
When all this information sees the light of day there is a lot of interesting detail to be found out.

All the best

wadinga


Seeing as emoticons are apparently banned!? Ill reply with text! A very interesting and informative post Wadinga. In regards to information release I suppose it depends on what your trying to prove. If a certain section could be interpreted as being supportive to a premise then it gets included. If the context of it is left out then effectively its a carte blanche to be used, even though it may not be supportive at all. You can't disprove it because you are only given a snippet.

Its akin to saying that a picture of HMS Whatever is definitely at Devonport in 1918, but only having a cropped image of ship and not the surroundings. You can vehemently argue that it is - and nobody can argue otherwise because they don't have access to the original image. It maybe there, it may not be. It maybe a picture from 1916 or 1921. All you have is an image and the say so of whoever made the statement.


Surely its better to have all the information and its contextual background than saying "this happened,I said so,Ive realeased a section of it, get over it".

Having been involved in medical research for many a year, this approach at best ends up being thrown out or at worst ends up in bad medicine

Worst of all its completely avoidable.

Best wishes



HMSVF

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:27 pm

Hi Paul,
you wrote: "I find it difficult to believe that two people were 'sleeping' during the battle..."
of course I was joking and underlining the fantasies I have read recently on this forum...
Please see examples here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=285#p84182) and you will understand.


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)

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 944
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by paul.mercer » Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:02 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:27 pm
Hi Paul,
you wrote: "I find it difficult to believe that two people were 'sleeping' during the battle..."
of course I was joking and underlining the fantasies I have read recently on this forum...
Please see examples here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=285#p84182) and you will understand.


Bye, Alberto
Thanks Alberto,
I couldn't imagine anyone sleeping with 8 x 15" guns going off, it's enough to awake the dead, let alone someone sleeping!!

Post Reply