Evasive and arbitrary is the above free comment. "To be polite", I can't care less of these opinions."To be polite, I find the above response rather evasive and arbitrary."
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.