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 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:34 pm

Hello everybody,
"To be polite, I find the above response rather evasive and arbitrary."
Evasive and arbitrary is the above free comment. "To be polite", I can't care less of these opinions.
However, as the "moderator" is not doing it..., I suggest him to answer without adding (unsolicited an unwelcome) personal provocative comments, as I did here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=255#p84144), previously answering him.


1) The PoW GAR is the only reference: if McMullen decided to exclude the local salvos from PoW RoF calculation, is because they are evidently IRRELEVANT for a serious evaluation of her performances. Mr.Angel has to serenely accept this fact, even if deeply annoying.

I showed that, even adding the local salvos, PoW still had a quite good effective RoF compared to BS (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&hilit=local_in ... 225#p82510). Please note that the table is calculated for PoW with the same methodology McMullen used for the central control interval in his GAR.
Thus, had he incorrectly decided to add the local salvos to his calculation of the PoW RoF, these are the results he would have obtained.

If figures are annoying, I can't help in any way, except a suggestion: try to propose any different figure, not only void words.


2 and 3) same as 1): the PoW GAR established the PoW RoF, not Mr.Angel wishes or pretended "curious logic".... If Leach decided to retreat, scrambling the gunnery of his ship and leaving her without a central fire control, it's not my fault. Possibly Mr.Angel would like (like Mr.Dunmunro) that in a serious calculation of the PoW RoF we assume the 06:11 timing given by her log to try to "adjust" a bit figures that are not in line with the "fairy tale" accounted by the offcial British reports (and subsequent books)... No comment.


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)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Byron Angel » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:02 pm

A not unexpected reaction. Oh well.

B

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by paul.mercer » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:27 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:53 am
Hello everybody,
Paul Mercer wrote: "I hope and trust that this post will kill any further comments on the decision by Capt Leach to withdraw once and for all."
Hi Paul,
unfortunately my answer to the "post" has been deleted...

No, I'm afraid this will not, as the effective output of PoW in terms of shells delivered against the enemy per minute was better than Bismarck's one and the British ship was straddling and hitting the enemy (download/file.php?id=3463).

I respect your view that the decision was right, possibly an Inquiry / Court Martial would have decided in the same way, but we will never know, becuase the decision was not to inquiry anyone. I don't agree with your view, though.

I


Bye, Alberto
Hi Alberto,
Thank you as always for your reply and as always I respect your opinions on the points that you make, although I'm afraid that I will have to disagree with this one, but this Forum wouldn't be so interesting if we all agreed with one another all the time would it?
I regret to say that on the particular subject that is raging at the moment, it seems that- as with others that have gone the same way we are at a stalemate with neither side giving an inch in their views which are leading to increasing redaction's by the Moderator and the discussions are going nowhere (again). There are times that I wish all the contributors could go back in time and stand on the bridge of PoW or Bismarck and continue to fight it out from there so they can count the shells fired for themselves!!
Is it not to lock down this thread as well?
All the best,
Paul

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Byron Angel » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:11 am

It appears that Churchill wanted to go after Somerville and Lancelot Holland for dereliction of duty after Cape Spartivento. LOL.

B

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 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:32 am

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "It appears that Churchill wanted to go after Somerville and Lancelot Holland for dereliction of duty after Cape Spartivento. LOL"
It does not appear. He actually did (and for much less than what had been committed during the Bismarck operation).

Lord Cork was waiting for Somerville on the dock at Gibraltar when he was back from Spartivento action and he run an Inquiry that fully exonerated Somerville. Btw, also Adm.Campioni got criticisms and Adm.Cavagnari (Capo di Stato Maggiore della Regia Marina, equivalent to First Sea Lord) was removed, following the battle.

At DS another decision was taken to "adjust" the issue....


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)

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by HMSVF » Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:02 am

Byron Angel wrote:
Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:11 am
It appears that Churchill wanted to go after Somerville and Lancelot Holland for dereliction of duty after Cape Spartivento. LOL.

B

And Cunningham whilst he was dealing with the French naval forces based in Alexandra after the fall of France. Churchill was the archetypal armchair admiral.

And quite frankly a menace. Whether this was part of a Dardanelles hangover... Who knows. Either way his interferences and hare brained schemes cost lives (Force Z) or careers. The only positive thing I could say about Dudley Pound is that for all his faults he recognised that it was pointless going head to head with him and better to just chip away at him (like with Operation Catherine).

Churchill needed a muzzle and a lead. Unfortunately Jackie Fisher had died 20 years previously.


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 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:00 am

Hello everybody,
HMSVF wrote: "....Unfortunately Jackie Fisher had died 20 years previously."
I do agree!...

Lord Fisher was the one who, speaking of Troubridge affair, said that a Court Martial would have been a waste of time and proposed the involved Admirals to be directly "shot, à la Bing" (download/file.php?id=1455 , from Imperial War Museum "Book of the War at Sea 1914-18" (Fisher commenting the Goeben and Breslau escape to Turkey))...

I would have much liked to read his point of view about the Bismarck operation derelictions of duty...


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: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:21 am

Fellow Contributors,

Please can we confine diversionary conversations about Troubridge, Admiral Byng or the Duke of Medina Sidonia to a place where they belong and concentrate on the subject of the thread?

An extremely biased mathematical distortion is presented to try and prove there were no significant problems with PoW's armament. Whatever this argument, I asked

If
point to an "excellent" RoF for PoW both actual and effective
were true, why would the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty write a handwritten memo enquiring what was being done about the problems? And why would the Head of the Ordnance section say they were being addressed?

Which has not been addressed.

Despite that the pressure of his office had increased massively with reverses in the Battle of the Atlantic, the decimation of the Mediterranean Fleet under German air and U boat onslaught, the new requirement to supply Russia by convoy and the dangerous signs of Japanese expansion requiring a deterrent naval force, Sir Dudley Pound takes time to address what Mr Virtuani calls "minor problems" in the KGVs. Six whole months after the action, these so-called "minor" problems still weigh heavy on his mind.

I think Sir Dudley Pound, Gerald Langley and Oliver Bevir had a much firmer hold on reality than Mr Virtuani.

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 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:14 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "...can we confine diversionary conversations..."
...said by someone who has just tried to divert Matapan discussion (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8567&start=30#p84142)...

"Which has not been addressed."
I'm happy to see that, therefore, all his other points (Mr.Wadinga almost never raises one point at a time, even if he has been requested to do so, justifying his decision with the brevity of the life...viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81523&hilit= ... ort#p81523) are considered fully addressed and (hopefully) finally accepted here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=255#p84147).

"...why would the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty write a handwritten memo enquiring what was being done about the problems?"
...because nobody has ever said that no problem at all happened (as they happened on PG, on KGV and most probably on BS and Hood too).
The problems for PoW were such to reduce her output efficiency from a theoretical 100% to 75%, but,, despite that, her effective RoF was better than Bismarck's (download/file.php?id=3463).
Thus they were not surely so relevant to "force" Leach to retreat. His decision was based on completely different considerations than actual guns performance (as he himself wrote in his report). Please read it again and try to digest what he wrote....
It was Tovey to add the excuse of the Y turret jamming to justify his Captain. Why ?

It is just normal that the 1st Sea Lord asked whether the big problems (turrt jamming) happened on KGV and PoW had been solved, and the answer is mentioning the important problems only.


Relentlessly repeating the same statements will not change what crude figures (not a biased mathematical distortion, as Mr:Wadinga pretends, being unable to counter the facs) tell us about PoW performances....

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: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:36 pm

Fellow Contributors,
It is just normal that the 1st Sea Lord asked whether the big problems
Normal. Normal? June, July, August, September, October and part of November pass by and still Sir Dudley is still worried about so-called minor things that happened in May? So they are not minor they are "big problems".

Neither Tovey nor Pound were interested in the mechanical details. Pound had access to the full report and could read more than "jammed turret" because as we know the turret was not jammed and was rotating to load from the deliberately immobilised shell ring in the fore and aft position. We know this thanks to Barben via Dunmunro (despite the attempt to suppress this important information) and Busch via his books.

In the DS threads it alleged an unguarded interview and unedited reminiscences constitute evidence of widespread falsification of records, in another it is graciously accepted that what people remember happening sixty plus years previously is likely to be wrong when it contradicts records made at the time. The value and weight given to personal evidence is as valid here as it is on the Matapan thread. The culpability or otherwise of Admiral Byng has nothing to do with the 14" naval gun.

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 » Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:51 pm

Hello everybody,

thanks to Mr.Wadinga for confirming that all the other points he had raised are addressed once forever (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=255#p84147).


Wadinga wrote: "...still Sir Dudley is still worried about so-called minor things that happened in May? "
Of course he was, we speak about the most modern British battleships available to the RN at the time (KGV's) as both KGV and PoW had showed a major problem of reliability.
He surely did not refer to the 25% average output loss of PoW before her disengagement... He was referring to both ships and obviously to the big problem, the jamming of the shell rings of their quadruple turrets, inducing at once an extra 40% output loss, that happened to PoW after the disengagement as well as to KGV during the battle against Bismarck.

This is what Pound wanted to have been addressed when he wrote the message and this is what he was told that was actually addressed.
Please don't try to say that a ship with turrets having to rotate until in line with the ship each time she has to load shells (Barben workaround) can be lightly sent to battle (except under emergency situation). We speak about a major reliability problem that had to be solved.


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: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:13 pm

Fellow Contributors,
He surely did not refer to the 25% average output loss of PoW before her disengagement
Who would be sure of that? 25% output when some guns had fired only 9 shots and some had fired far less. Guns that don't fire at all are 100% efficient.
the jamming of the shell rings of their quadruple turrets
Besides please read what Barben said, I know you tried to suppress it's appearance here, but it's too late to make a fuss now.
Y turret had bad luck due to faulty drill. While the shell ring was fully loaded and locked to SHIP a rammer number in the shell room released his anti-surging stop from a shell and as the ship rolled, the shell slid forward across the fixed trays, and into the revolving ring.
This happened just at the time the trunk traversing number was taking over, and when he began traversing (the ring) he buckled two trays and also fouled the revolving ring. It took some considerable time to dismantle the trays, so in order to keep going, the mounting was trained back to the fore and aft centre line to reload.
The ring is not jammed at all, anymore than "the turret is jammed". Elements of the ship's structure which are supposed to lock clear of the shell ring were not according to Barben.

A V Godding who was an Ordnance Artificer actually in Y turret (unlike Barben) describes things differently Originally from Battleship at War B R Coward 1987 but in combined vol Battleship, Cruiser, Destroyer. Unfortunately no reference. Yet.
Now came the breakdown, which some "historians" say "the turret would not train"! The cause was that the anti-surge stops on the shell ring sheared and a shell surged back, jamming the intermediate shell trays, which were the links between the shell rooms and the shell ring. The gun house was told "Stop Training!" because of the mayhem being caused in the shell handling room. All hands were then at it with sledge hammers and hacksaws but it was some time before we were back in reasonable shape on the shell ring.

Now the central hoist cage had problems. The shell arrestors in the central hoist cages were sluggish in returning and the cages were being hoisted before the arrestors were clear, hence another breakdown. Cordite handling room interlock 14 was causing problems with the indicator in the traversing space. Incidentally I modified this interlock to prevent the problem.
Two detailed but different versions, one featuring a shell sliding forwards through crew error and one featuring a shell sliding back after the shearing on the shell ring. Just of one of many faults bedevilling PoW's turrets ever since installation. When further detail from the trials is uncovered we shall know more about what really happened, and dismiss the hatchet job on Leach once and for all.

All the best

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

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Jun 28, 2019 2:59 am

Excellent post, Wadinga. Unfortunately, the event you cite occurred after the magic 0602 time cut-off and is therefore probably altogether irrelevant to your correspondent for purposes of battle analysis.

This is getting to be like the 'Black Knight' scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".

B

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 7:25 am

Hello everybody,
" Unfortunately, the event you cite occurred after the magic 0602 time cut-off and is therefore probably altogether irrelevant to your correspondent "
Exactly it's very interesting but totally irrelevant: not to me, but to the PoW Gunnery Officer and his Captain who wrote and signed the PoW GAR.

The fire action for PoW ended at 06:02: it's their decision in an official report. The random local salvos, albeit quite well directed and praiseworthy, cannot be counted in a serious RoF evaluation for the ship, even if they don't change dramatically the figures, as demonstrated (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&hilit=local_in ... 225#p82510).



I don't need to answer to:

1) the specious differentiation between "jamming" and "fouling" for the Y turret shell ring... If fouling is so much better, than we have found another cover-up in the official reports (thanks to Mr.Wadinga umpteenth self-goals), when they tried to state that Y turret was unusable for the Captain to re-engage immediately after having opened range, while it was.... No comment on such a statement...

2) the usual low insinuations of Mr.Wadinga("you tried to suppress it's appearance" here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&p=84173#p84164), I wait the "moderator" intervention to stop him, unable to write a single post based on facts, avoiding free provocations, despite my repeated invitations.


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: 1433
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 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.
Regards

Marc

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

Post Reply