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 » Tue May 28, 2019 5:45 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote (quoting me) : "This statement seems nonsensical to me: "An excellent RoF compensates for a loss of output""
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....

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)).


" If McMullen had tried to output 150 shells how many hours would it have taken?"
McMullen was firing 14" guns not 8" guns nor a battery of pom-poms...
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).


"Comments have been made about "boomerangs""
...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...


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue May 28, 2019 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 763
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue May 28, 2019 6:07 pm

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. If the current situation continues, what is more likely is that when the book finally IS released, it will be negatively reviewed by some members of this forum, which would actually serve to decrease sales. Further, I don't think there are very many serious readers who would fail to purchase the book simply because the information has already been presented here, and there is no need to in effect 'buy it again'. Readers are buying the synthesis of the document, not the content of the documentary record itself, which could, in any case, be paraphrased here in order to whet the appetite of current researchers.

The statements seem to imply that the material to be released contains some irrefutable proof that the Bonomi/Virtuani hypothesis (hypotheses?) is (are) correct, but other than general 'wait and see' allusions, no hint is being given as to exactly what the hitherto secret document files might actually contain. Why would Mssrs. Virtuani and Bonomi expose themselves to such unrelenting criticism, and engage in lengthy discussions regarding documentary trivia, when they apparently hold the critical evidence that would deliver instant victory in their files?

I just don't know...

Might Mr. Virtuani (and perhaps Mr. Bonomi) clarify?

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 » Tue May 28, 2019 6:36 pm

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "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..."
I don't think I have seen here in the forum many pages, info or disclosures from the next book Mr.Jurens was due to publish about Bismarck... not even a battlemap... Same reason.
btw: when will it finally be published ? I thought it was due some time ago: any delay ?


"The statements seem to imply that the material to be released contains some irrefutable proof that the Bonomi/Virtuani hypothesis (hypotheses?) is (are) correct"
Irrefutable proofs have already been made available and were duly presented and explained without any solid argument been made against them (but still the proofs are refused by the "indeterminateness" party here). Why posting more info for people who have no willingness at all to look at the truth (and who will negatively comment the book "a priori" due to their evident agenda) ?
Friends here can ask whatever information privately. Foes should just wait.



We have already shared so many new and never published information (and I'm still releasing info e.g. about the Wilkinson report content...) here that I feel any criticism as not justified at all... and asking Mr.Bonomi to provide info after having made him leaving the forum, without presenting excuses, is really not much serious...


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue May 28, 2019 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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)

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by northcape » Tue May 28, 2019 7:19 pm

Bill Jurens wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 6:07 pm

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. If the current situation continues, what is more likely is that when the book finally IS released, it will be negatively reviewed by some members of this forum, which would actually serve to decrease sales.
As a side-note, I doubt that any book on such isolated matters (and I consider even the complete Bismarck history as isolated within the entire book market) will generate commercial value. This has nothing to do with the quality of a publication, but I cannot imagine a large enough audience to generate significant income. It is all (authors+audience) a very small group of enthusiasts, which I think can never offset the production costs (taking into consideration effort and time by the authors). So I for myself keep that argument out of the discussion, but I'm also happy to be educated differently by people here with actual book publication experience.

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by northcape » Tue May 28, 2019 7:22 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 6:36 pm

after having made him leaving the forum,

Just another out of hundreds of occasions where truth and fiction are reversed.

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 » Tue May 28, 2019 7:33 pm

...said by one of the (side) contributors to Antonio's leave....
"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)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 763
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue May 28, 2019 9:24 pm

Mr. Viruani wrote:

"I don't think I have seen here in the forum many pages, info or disclosures from the next book Mr.Jurens was due to publish about Bismarck... not even a battlemap... Same reason."

On this side, there actually IS no reason. There is, at this stage, I don't feel there is much new -- certainly not much new of of enormous import -- to disclose. The upcoming book is largely technical rather than tactical in focus, so most readers here would probably find that it describes the Denmark Strait action in rather conventional form. The battle-map -- there is one -- represents an amalgam and the author's best consensus based on a variety of sources, but does not purport to be in any way definitive. There is certainly no discussion regarding an elaborate cover-up regarding Leach's actions on that day. There is some new information -- and I think some nice diagrams -- depicting the damage suffered by Bismarck from 24-27 May, and some naval architectural analysis on things like actual, vs apparently observed, lists trims and drafts of Bismarck during the last days of her Atlantic mission.

Actually, it's not my book. It's a collaborative effort with Bill Garzke, Bob Dulin, and myself, with James Cameron acting as a contributor. Overall, I think it represents a pretty good summary of the historical situation as it is understood now, with emphasis on Bismarck, not on damage to Prince of Wales, etc., although the Denmark Strait action is surely discussed. While future research might uncover further detail, I don't think there is anything substantive remaining to be discovered; few or none of the participants are still alive, which means all that is left are written records, meaning that from here on in it's more or less textual analysis. Although one can historically re-shuffle the deck in various ways and perhaps even discover an additional fragment or two of 'new' information in obscure archives and private collections here and there, I'd be really surprised to find if there was anything of consequence remaining to be discovered regarding the Bismarck episode or any realistic probability of generating some dramatically different narrative.

As in any collaborative effort, the printed version essentially represents a consensus of opinion; so there are areas and issues that I -- had I been working completely independently -- might have treated somewhat differently. I'm sure that mssrs. Garzke, Dulin, and Cameron feel the same way too. That being said, I think the four of us have overall reached a reasonable general consensus, though perhaps -- at least by Mr. Vituani's standards -- probably not a very interesting one.

Mr. Vituani wrote:

"btw: when will it finally be published ? I thought it was due some time ago: any delay ?"

Good question. It keeps getting pushed back in two-week increments. I suppose the publishers have many irons in the fire. Peer review is complete and the books actually have been printed and/or are in press; I made my last editorial contributions in February or so. My understanding is that the book should be formally released in early June of this year. So the ball is in the publisher's court now...

Bill Jurens.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by paul.mercer » Wed May 29, 2019 9:19 am

Hi Bill and Alberto,
Could you both let the Forum know what are the titles of your books and who the publishers will be so we can keep a look out for them?

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

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by pgollin » Wed May 29, 2019 10:53 am

.

As Bill "forgot" to do a bit of advertising, here is the listing from Amazon.co.uk (other retailers are available) ;

https://amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1526759 ... UTF8&psc=1

Amazon are saying 30th June at the moment which agrees with the British publishers,

https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Battles ... ck/p/16351

.

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 May 29, 2019 11:05 am

Hi Paul,
from our side the question is a bit complex:

Antonio Bonomi is already publishing in German/English 7 books on Tirpitz & Bismarck (http://bismarck-tirpitz.com/?lang=en)
The first 4 Tirpitz books are already available, the fifth and last one will be out by the end of this year.
As far as I know, the DS battle detail reconstruction (done putting together the available evidences (film and photos) as presented here on the forum, supported by never published photos and documents), the detail battlemaps (first contact, night shadowing, battle (super detailed map in 1cm / 1 sm scale), May 25 shadowing, loss of contact) will be part of the second book about Bismarck (due probably by 2021 end).

After all books will be out (let's say 2023), Antonio will be free from his "legal bounds" with his current co-author.


We will then be free to publish our book on the Denmark Strait full story (more technical and document driven than image driven compared to the previous volumes) and mostly on its "regrettable aftermath" (based on new unpublished documents) in Italian first (through Storia Militare books editions) and then in English (no editor identified yet, but good contacts with peer reviewers).
I would say the book (that is being written since a couple of years now, but due to our work constraints will take at least other 3-4 years before being completed and ready for printing) may become available in 2024 or later only.


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: 2159
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Wed May 29, 2019 4:34 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Returning from the commercial break.
Her "effective RoF" was just slightly less than Bismarck's
Please let's compare the 55 shells in 9 minutes with the 93 shells in 14 minutes
Why bother since it is a specious comparison? Even the dear departed Alecsandros couldn't stomach the requirement to stick to this part of the mantra and argued Bismarck's RoF was extremely variable and couldn't be derived like this in reverse by assuming she fired at the same rate for the whole 14 minutes.
" If McMullen had tried to output 150 shells how many hours would it have taken?"
Received the obtuse response
McMullen was firing 14" guns not 8" guns nor a battery of pom-poms...
PG accumulated a much lower number of failures firing approx 150 shots than PoW accumulated firing only 55 from more muzzles. It is clear PG's guns were much more reliable. In the case of KGV where more extended firing happened, the output dropped even more substantially, showing that using the guns caused an increasing number of failures to develop. Given how unreliable PoW's guns became in the first 9 minutes of action, compared with KGV's over the same period, I wondered with escalating numbers of failures and lengthy times to repair, how long would it take PoW to fire 150 shots?

All the best

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

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 » Wed May 29, 2019 5:12 pm

@Wadinga

Everybody is discussing 6:00, but nobody wants to look at 18:00 , on May 24th...

Who looks there finds Prince of Wales effective output of 85% , the same as Prinz Eugen's.

===

For Bismarck versus Prince of Wales, all available accounts show the gunnery output in the relevant time frames , as well as in the overall combat, was practically the same (you need to consider geometry, masking of guns, and finding or not finding of the range... Scheider ordered rapid fire after (semi)salvo 3... because it straddled early. McMullen did not. You need to attempt a role switch -- how would the effective fire develop if the 2 ships would switch roles ? Probably Bismarck would straddle later, owing to sea spray, water pooring through her "A" turret, drenching everybody inside, and only having a limited number of forward guns available to find the range. Prince of Wales would probably straddle faster , and fire more shots owing to a steady course , and 10 main guns fully unmasked from the beginning. Etc. )

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by paul.mercer » Wed May 29, 2019 5:50 pm

pgollin wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 10:53 am
.

As Bill "forgot" to do a bit of advertising, here is the listing from Amazon.co.uk (other retailers are available) ;

https://amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1526759 ... UTF8&psc=1

Amazon are saying 30th June at the moment which agrees with the British publishers,

https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Battles ... ck/p/16351

.
I've just looked it up, many thanks,
Paul

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 May 29, 2019 6:41 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Why bother since it is a specious comparison? ....Received the obtuse response"
"Obtuse" here is not my response...
"Specious" are the arguments presented to claim "indeterminateness" even on an easily calculated RoF...

I still hope the "moderator" will intervene asking this impenitent member to guard his tongue once forever...


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: 2159
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Wed May 29, 2019 6:53 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Alecsandros (happily still with us) points out:
Who looks there finds Prince of Wales effective output of 85% , the same as Prinz Eugen's.
So PoW fired only 41 shells to reach the same value of missed shots as it took PG 150 to achieve. If PoW had fired as many as 55 as per the morning would she have beaten her earlier record for breakdowns?
and 10 main guns fully unmasked from the beginning
Which meant they would likely have started breaking down earlier. Guns you don't fire are remarkably serviceable. Both KGVs suffered breakdowns, escalating with the number of shots fired. PoW achieved a higher number of missed shots much quicker.

Could I ask Alecsandros to clearly state whether he considers dividing the number of shells fired by the action duration for Bismarck gives a number of any value whatsoever? We know PoW's salvo interval was extremely variable because have actual records not the speculative, highly motivated guesswork presented for Bismarck. This observation:
Scheider ordered rapid fire after (semi)salvo 3
makes it clear he perceptively realises Bismarck's rate also varied hugely, making the use of crudely-averaged values worthless. Or specious.

NB Please excuse the italics above, I still have text disappearing from the preview pane, and applying style restores it.

All the best

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

Post Reply