No surprise at all, as apparently Mr.Wadinga has not yet found the time to study McMullen GAR with its definition of output loss and RoF....Wadinga wrote (quoting me) : "This statement seems nonsensical to me: "An excellent RoF compensates for a loss of output""
They do compensate in the "effective RoF", annoying as McMullen table can be (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm, see table [Enclosure (I)] SUMMARY OF FORMS S.1146 (f)).
McMullen was firing 14" guns not 8" guns nor a battery of pom-poms..." If McMullen had tried to output 150 shells how many hours would it have taken?"
Please let's compare the 55 shells in 9 minutes with the 93 shells in 14 minutes, with the due corrections (done by McMullen, not by me) to normalize for the fact that Y turret was wooded for 8 salvos.
The RoF of PoW was "excellent" (Santarini is the only one having studied the DS battle from a gunnery statistical point of view and his judgement of PoW performance is the reference up to now, waiting for a better study...), faster than the peak of KGV on May 27.
Her "effective RoF" was just slightly less than Bismarck's (of course not in line with PG's nor with the RoF of a machine gun...) on May 24 download/file.php?id=3463 (whatever number of ordered shots is assumed for Bismarck).
...and the gunnery acceptance report will be the umpteenth boomerang, but (if found... and if really posted here, that I strongly doubt) it will show much, much fairness indeed..."Comments have been made about "boomerangs""