More on KGV Class main armament problems

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by paul.mercer » Mon May 27, 2019 9:55 am

Gentlemen, I have often wondered if there are still unpublished documents somewhere in the MoD archives. The british Government have always been 'cagey' about releasing stuff to the public and seem to have made great use of the 'Secret', Top Secret' and 'Not to be published for X number of years' stamps on their files so perhaps this is the case with the DS battle and the KGV's although I cannot see why info on 14" guns and their turrets could be that much of interest?

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 » Mon May 27, 2019 10:57 am

Hello everybody,
"Is this in a withheld document?"
No, in a document held by a member that was forced to leave the forum forever by the attitude of the ones that are here only to deny facts and protect their version of facts against any evidence. Possibly presenting him formal excuses could change his decision...

The document is the final PoW gunnery acceptance trial result run in early May, written after a conference was held on board PoW between Admiralty representatives, ship officers and Vickers representatives). As Wilkinson summarizes, in these trials each gun fired the "allotted number of rounds" foreseen by the contract and the results were "satisfactory" (and logically forced Leach to declare the ship ready for fleet service despite his fears...). Of course the report for the Admiralty gives all details, that do not contradict in any way Wilkinson summary.


The only document made (without permission) available here is relative to a further gunnery sheet (dawn and night) run on May 15, in which further 6 rounds were fired by each main gun, with no failure.


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)

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by pgollin » Mon May 27, 2019 11:07 am

wadinga wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 9:50 am
Fellow Contributors<

I believe Phil may correct about Government created images, but my images were created by me with a phone camera and there are no restrictions over the use of phone cameras at Kew. For high quality rostrum camera images created by the staff there a charge is made to cover their work.

This clause on the restrictions page on the Open Government Licence:

Home > Information management > Re-using public-sector information > UK Government Licensing Framework > Open Government Licence > Exceptions to OGL

departmental logos, crests, military insignia and the Royal Arms, except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset – separate arrangements are in place, see for example the licensing arrangements for insignia used by the Ministry of Defence


makes it clear that the OGL agreement realises and expects that user-generated photos of documents will be used but does not want its logos used in new "fake" documents. However if I have contravened regulations I will take my punishment, although there may be a spare room at the Ecuadorian Embassy I could use. .......




NO !

Crown Copyright applies to the documents and what they are used for.

THIS "should" have been explained to you in the introductory tour.

You may transcribe, but NOT publish images (without paying for a licence).

.

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 » Mon May 27, 2019 11:07 am

Paul Mercer wrote: "I have often wondered if there are still unpublished documents somewhere"
Hi Paul,
each time someone goes to the archives, new documents are found that were never presented nor referenced in the published books up to now. It's the case of Vickers' report or of the PoW gunnery acceptance trials results (just to mention the last ones discussed here). Think also about documents that were mentioned but never really studied in depth such as the most revealing ADM205/10 papers or the letters written by Tovey to Roskill regarding the regrettable aftermath of the DS battle.

The list is very long, including the strategical plots of NF and SF, Capt.Ellis' autobiography, the letter from Tovey to Pound dated May 31, the salvo plots of the involved ships, the lists of messages of the operation (the Admiralty list, but also the NF and SF extracts or the recently mentioned Rodney collection of Wellings) and also documents never mentioned nor published from German side. Some of them were presented first on this very forum.


However there are also a lot of repositories that are still closed to public, e.g. Tovey's paper at Churchill Archives (a huge repository, in which I hope we will finally to able to find the "famous" letter written by Pound to Tovey on May 28...). However e.g. the Tovey's papers will be released only in 2040....

I think there is still plenty of space for new discoveries, if we are lucky enough to have enough time in front of us...


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)

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by pgollin » Mon May 27, 2019 11:44 am

paul.mercer wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 9:55 am
Gentlemen, I have often wondered if there are still unpublished documents somewhere in the MoD archives. The british Government have always been 'cagey' about releasing stuff to the public and seem to have made great use of the 'Secret', Top Secret' and 'Not to be published for X number of years' stamps on their files so perhaps this is the case with the DS battle and the KGV's although I cannot see why info on 14" guns and their turrets could be that much of interest?


(Yet again)

There are facts, rumours and supposition.

It is generally accepted that many, many files that "we" would be interested in were thrown away/burnt in the post war (and later period).

Two examples ;

1: The vast majority of the BAD (British Admiralty Delegation) files were discarded around 1947/48 as the UK didn't want to spend their dollars on shipping them back from the USA ! Hence the drawings for the proposed large refits of Nelson (US 5-inch turrets and Fire Control) and Warspite (extra 4 x twin 4-inch turrets plus extra AA) were lost, plus lots of other details "we" would be interested in.

2: In the late 60's the NMM were offered a vast number of wartime ship camouflage designs and papers, as long as they paid for them to be put in a taxi to the NMM. The NMM weren't interested and hence the camo info was discarded !

And many other stories.

It would seem likely that almost all the detailed papers of the DNC, DNO, Vickers, etc.... WERE all destroyed. (OF COURSE, there is always the example of the SOE files which at various times were claimed o have been lost due to fire, asbestos contamination and flood ! And yet many of the more important files suddenly appeared a few years ago !) Vickers files SEEM to have been almost all disposed of (at least the Vickers archives say that). DNC's and DNO's files (as with so much detail) have also almost ceased to exist.

There are two main "known unknowns". First, those files closed for one hundred years at the TNA:PRO, Second those files held at the Foreign Office archives (open only to extremely favoured researchers - I know two reasonably well known researchers/authors who have been refused access despite representations from well placed people). Whether the Foreign Office archive will ever really be opened I cannot tell. Government statements say that they are working on declassifying documents, but rumours say the work is very slow, expensive and not progressing much.

In addition to all that there are undoubtedly many files both in the archives and in government departments that are just not on any list for publication.

( Oh! and just in case people are hoping for a better future, two additional problems.

1: Nuclear weapons/power means that many files which mention classified information are embargoes, however old. So this means that many post-war ship design files may never be released - except with major excisions.

2: Computerisation/IT. Lots of problems; how to read out of date software, how to organise/catalogue, how to "weed". It is hard enough with text files, but any CAD or other specialist software makes the problem harder.

So a mess ! )

.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Mon May 27, 2019 1:15 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Notwithstanding Phil's expert input, I hope the following will protect me:
The default licence for most Crown copyright and Crown database right information is the Open Government Licence.
I am not reproducing images from the NA Image library. I have made my own images of documents.

The following pages are Crown Copyright:

Image

Image

Image

This is the supposedly well-worked up ship, KGV.

On the anniversary of these happenstances, enjoy!

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 » Mon May 27, 2019 1:29 pm

Hello everybody,

thanks to Mr.Wadinga for fully confirming what I was saying here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556#p83750 about the inherent problems of the 14" mountings (KGV or PoW, "fully" worked up or not), posting these very well known pages from ADM 234-509.

I would however suggest to read carefully Adm.Tovey conclusions (pag.183-187 of the same file), summarizing PoW, KGV and Rodney gunnery narratives/reports + observations on enemy shooting in order to check whether he ever insisted on a "poor shooting" of PoW compared to KGV during the actions....


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: 2163
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Mon May 27, 2019 3:12 pm

Fellow Contributors,

What exactly would Admiral Tovey know about using a hacksaw to cut off bits of the hinged tray to clear the loading ring on A turret? I have already supplied p 187 in which Tovey says
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.
Instead of pretending Tovey's words support Mr Virtuani's hypotheses in any way, it would surely be more consistent to allege everything Tovey describes is a falsehood.

Just as David Brown DCNC noted (thanks Byron) there was insufficient designed allowance for clearance, and once the ship was flexing in seaway, things that were installed too close together started to strike and damage each other. Because there had been no proper trials of 25 rounds per gun, even in KGV, these things stopped guns firing on the 27th.

The "design fault" might be that the methods of retaining the shells either in the shell trays ready for loading, or on the shell ring once transferred, were inadequate. Ad hoc measures like lassoing with rope lanyards or keeping watertight doors shut when they should be open or "holding the shell" on the revolving ring (arms/legs/life at risk) are desperate measures to overcome a badly-designed/installed system. Leach knew these things had happened in the very limited trials possible, knew they were happening in the action because so many guns missed their salvo despite the slow rate of fire, and made a logical and wise decision.

Once again comments are made that fail to differentiate between "gunnery" quality and output. Both are important.
in order to check whether he ever insisted on a "poor shooting" of PoW compared to KGV during the actions
Gunnery/shooting ability is based around placing what shells you have on target. Perfect gunnery/shooting performance is a hit with the first and only shot. 100%. But if the enemy fires 20 shots and only hits with 5 his gunnery/shooting is poorer, but you are still deader.

I expect to see a re-emergence of imaginary output salvoes per minute figures for Bismarck again soon since the specious comparison for PG (at least they were real figures) was shot down so quickly and easily.

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 » Mon May 27, 2019 4:55 pm

Hello everybody,

in his reports, Tovey never insisted on the fact that PoW crew was inexperienced and never said her gunnery was poor for this reason, because this would have been difficult to sustain after the actual good performance of the ship on May 24. His statement that PoW "had started off well" is clearly written in the despatches (pag.12).
From pag.183 till 187 of ADM 234-509 (the whole gunnery conclusions, not the three lines small snippet (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=15#p83779) posted by Mr.Wadinga to support his particular point of view...) Tovey never said anything different, just he recognized the efforts of the crew to guarantee what actually resulted (as we now know) in a decent output, an excellent RoF and a fairly good precision.

He insisted instead on the fact that both KGV and PoW had still problems with their turrets, being a complete new design, and not having had enough time to fix the design problem (not even specifying whether KGV or PoW had fired more rounds before the battle...but clearly saying that KGV had not fired her "due" 25 rounds....) as I have said (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556#p83750).


Thus the repeated statements about the poor inexperienced ship rushed out without sufficient preparation are simply false and invented to support the novels that justify Capt.Leach's debatable decision.


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: 3983
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 27, 2019 7:44 pm

wadinga wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 1:15 pm
Fellow Contributors,

Notwithstanding Phil's expert input, I hope the following will protect me:
The default licence for most Crown copyright and Crown database right information is the Open Government Licence.
I am not reproducing images from the NA Image library. I have made my own images of documents.

The following pages are Crown Copyright:


This is the supposedly well-worked up ship, KGV.

On the anniversary of these happenstances, enjoy!

All the best

wadinga
Thanks. I have the same info and used it to build my KGV salvo chart. In many cases the number of rounds fired is given, which in turn, provides the approximate salvo number and time of the failure and in most cases it was after A turret jammed after firing 23/rnds/gun. The number of rounds missed where this information is not given, is actually quite small (~14 by my estimate).

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Mon May 27, 2019 8:02 pm

Fellow Contributors,

It doesn't take several pages to Show Mr Virtuani's interpretation of Tovey's summary is at odds with the actual report:

How can resulted
in a decent output,
be reconciled with
The loss of output in PoW's case might have been much greater
ie The loss of output was great (bad) to start with and could have been even greater (worse).

Maybe we could have a quote from Tovey about PoW's "excellent RoF". Maybe we shall have all the pages from 183 to 187 to see what Tovey really said, and further details from the withheld Admiralty Report.

Is this
(not even specifying whether KGV or PoW had fired more rounds before the battle.
a pretence to suggest PoW had fired more rounds than KGV without actually saying so?

It seems I shall have to tempt fate and the Copyright laws some more.

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 » Mon May 27, 2019 8:40 pm

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "It doesn't take several pages to Show Mr Virtuani's interpretation of Tovey's summary is at odds with the actual report"
It doesn't take several rows to Show Mr Wadinga's interpretation of Tovey's summary is at odds with the above: pag.12: "PoW had started off well".


"The loss of output was great (bad)"
It was 26% vs 15% of Prinz Eugen: was PG output loss mentioned by anybody as being in any way less than normal in Germany ?
26% is higher but not so bad and indeed Adm.Tovey does not say what Mr.Wadinga puts in his mouth....


"Maybe we could have a quote from Tovey about PoW's "excellent RoF"."
Maybe Mr.Wadinga can show a critic from Tovey against PoW RoF ? What a pity, he can't...

Be happy with Adm.Santarini authoritative judgement then: "excellent" for the RoF and "superb" for McMullen performance.
An excellent RoF compensates for a loss of output, as already demonstrated mathematically (download/file.php?id=3461)...


"Is this a pretence to suggest PoW had fired more rounds than KGV"
Yes it is, and everybody will be able to read about it in few years... for the time being it's enough to say with Wilkinson that PoW had fired all the "allotted" rounds per gun when declared ready for fleet service (+ other 6 rounds on May 15), while KGV apparently had not... your conclusion about the content of the acceptance report and the number of rounds per gun certified in it ? :wink:



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)

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by pgollin » Mon May 27, 2019 10:09 pm

wadinga wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 1:15 pm
Fellow Contributors,

Notwithstanding Phil's expert input, I hope the following will protect me:
The default licence for most Crown copyright and Crown database right information is the Open Government Licence.
I am not reproducing images from the NA Image library. I have made my own images of documents. ......

NO ! You are breaking Crown Copyright yet again.

( Did you bother to read the link about Crown Copyright ? )

Crown Copyright applies to the unpublished documents in the archives.

To quote ;

You must obtain permission from the Image Library of The National Archives for the reproduction of copies of any records, whether they are protected by Crown copyright, are non-Crown
copyright or are out of copyright, for publication, on the internet, for broadcasting, for exhibition or
for any commercial purpose.


That is very clear.

The Open Government Licence is for open, published Government information.

Hence you may copy and publish a Government Statement made today, or pages out of an Official WW2 History.

You cannot publish images of unpublished documents in the archives.

This would have been explained to you when you joined the TNA, and (if applicable) when you said you were going to use a camera.

.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by paul.mercer » Tue May 28, 2019 8:40 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 11:07 am
Paul Mercer wrote: "I have often wondered if there are still unpublished documents somewhere"

I think there is still plenty of space for new discoveries, if we are lucky enough to have enough time in front of us...


Bye, Alberto
Hi Alberto,
Thanks as always for your reply, if your last sentence is correct and things are hidden under a 100 year rule, we may have to get our grandchildren to continue this part of the Forum!!

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Tue May 28, 2019 4:46 pm

Fellow Contributors,

This statement seems nonsensical to me
An excellent RoF compensates for a loss of output
You can't have a high rate of fire with low output. PG had to fire 150 plus shells at 25-30 sec salvo rate to achieve this much lower drop in output than PoW achieved in only 55 shots. If McMullen had tried to output 150 shells how many hours would it have taken? It would be pointless to suggest than if, say 1 gun out of ten were firing at 30 second intervals whilst all the others were broken down, that one's ship was maintaining a high Rate of Fire.

Part of the problem is the obsession with "ordered shots" over actually fired. When the 6 rounds per gun were fired what was the salvo rate? Very, very slow I imagine, maybe one shot per hour. Plenty of time for hacksaws to be deployed to cut off conflicting bits of structure.

Tovey says "the loss of output would have been greater". This means the loss of output was already "great" and could have been "greater", it does not specify or even imply that the loss of output was small or indeed "decent".
Maybe Mr.Wadinga can show a critic from Tovey against PoW RoF ?
The loss of output was great enough to be reported as a matter of concern and the strenuous measures to stop it even greater. If output from PoW was decent or adequate and not a matter of concern, why mention it in the first place?
Yes it is, and everybody will be able to read about it in few years
I aim to make it available lot sooner than that. And for free, whatever it says. Comments have been made about "boomerangs", but if you are interested solely in the truth and not selling a Conspiracy Theory, there is just increased knowledge, not winners and "loosers".

Admiral Santarini endorsed PoW's gunnery. Mr Jurens who has probably studied more records from that era, has not. As we have established, good gunnery with inadequate output may be beaten by poorer gunnery with better output.

How about printing to whole of the sentence/ paragraph from which
PoW had started off well
has been surgically removed, to sever context?



From the Reading Room rules:
Most public records in TNA are in Crown copyright. Any public records that are subject to Crown copyright should be made available under the terms of the Open Government Licence (OGL).
’public record’ means a record which is part of the statutory holdings of TNA
This includes both published and subsequently released material.
Applications for permission to use copies of images for publication (including website publication), exhibition or broadcast or any commercial purpose must be addressed to TNA Image Library, The National Archives, Kew, Surrey, TW9 4DU. E-mail: image-library@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk
I will establish whether self made ie low rec photos of documents not copies of images are subject to restriction if used on the Web.

All the best

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

Post Reply