Washington

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Washington

Post by alecsandros »

lwd wrote:
But there is more to training than just "battle training is there not? How much such training did PoW get?
Read the paper and comment less.
Eaxctly and PoW was having probmems with her optical systems as well due to the weather and direction of travel yet the statistis still donot allow the conclusion that Bismarck was shooting better.
Yes, they do, but it's to hard to accept the truth when you're stuck in a lie.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Washington

Post by lwd »

alecsandros wrote:
lwd wrote:
But there is more to training than just "battle training is there not? How much such training did PoW get?
Read the paper and comment less.
What paper? Or maybe I should suggest you make more useful comments rather than repeating yourself. Consider this. For everyone who posts on a thread there are usually several who simply read it. If you present your materail here then they don't have to try digging it out so it's not just for my benefit. That's another reason shotgun referenceing such as you are doing is rather discouraged in most of the historical forums I'm familiar with.
Eaxctly and PoW was having probmems with her optical systems as well due to the weather and direction of travel yet the statistis still donot allow the conclusion that Bismarck was shooting better.
Yes, they do, but it's to hard to accept the truth when you're stuck in a lie.[/quote]
That is uncalled for. What "lie"? If you have a problem with my assumptions state why they are wrong and give a specific source if you think my logic is bad state why. Insults and vague statements such as the above add nothing.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Washington

Post by alecsandros »

:pray: :pray: :pray:
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Washington

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote:
dunmunro wrote: Neither PoW nor Bismarck scored any hits in the two subsequent engagements, although PoW may have straddled Bismarck at over 30,000 yds.
It's irrelevant; during the first battle, Bismarck, as a fighting unit, performed better than PoW, allthough under constant fire.
Bismarck also made several course alterations, one of which threw off her FC solution also. However, Bismarck reaquired the target and landed another hit (or hits) on PoW.
You are saying that Bismarck's FC wasn't effected by being under fire, but by the same token, neither was PoW's. The fact is that PoW's hit percentage, using purely optical control, nearly matched Bismarck's radar ranged FC. Give PoW a functioning radar and it would have been a very different story, and PoW's radars probably were operating properly but simple inexperience caused them to go down. Bismarck had been in Commission since Aug 1940 versus Jan 1941 for PoW, although both ships were physically completed some months after commissioning, but the fact is that Bismarck's crew had more time aboard to train and familiarize themselves with their ship.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Washington

Post by lwd »

dunmunro wrote: .... The fact is that PoW's hit percentage, using purely optical control, nearly matched Bismarck's radar ranged FC. ...
He also doesn't like it that if you run the statistics based on hits there is no statistically significant difference between the shooting of the two. I.e. the difference could come down to luck alone. He seems to have learned from Karl to just post smiley faces when he can't refute the facts.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Washington

Post by alecsandros »

dunmunro wrote:
You are saying that Bismarck's FC wasn't effected by being under fire, but by the same token, neither was PoW's.
No.
I'm saying more than that.
Bismarck obtained straddles and hits during the entire battle, against 2 manouevreing targets, and while under fire.
PoW obtained less straddles and less hits during the first 5 minutes, against a single manuevreing target, while being completely unopposed.

@Lwd: :stubborn: :negative:
:pray:
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Washington

Post by alecsandros »

dunmunro wrote: Bismarck had been in Commission since Aug 1940 versus Jan 1941 for PoW, although both ships were physically completed some months after commissioning, but the fact is that Bismarck's crew had more time aboard to train and familiarize themselves with their ship.
You seem to have the same problem lwd has ?
What's the matter with you people, why don't you bother reading some material for Christ's sake ?

for the last time:

http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/barmament.html

and

http://www.kbismarck.com/testi.html

For the record, I;m not saying BS and PoW crews were similarly trained (duh!), but that Bismarck's crew was far from combat ready during Rheinubung. Many essential training was not done, because of the haste with which the operation was planned and executed. AVKS-700 details this.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Washington

Post by lwd »

alecsandros wrote:What's the matter with you people, why don't you bother reading some material for Christ's sake ?
When you list large documents and don't tell what portions you think are significant it's called shotgun sourcing and doesn't rate high on my priorities as far as reading goes but lets take a look at these:
I saw nothing in this document, although I didn't read it throughly, stating that Bismarck's crew had deficient training. It did state that some of the desired testing hadn't been acomplished but also stated that some of the extra time in port meant she was in better physical shape and that much of that time was devoted to training.
This document says much the same from what I can tell.

Now the Bismarck's crew may not have been as well trained as some would have liked but the German admiralty certainly judged her ready for a combat mission and one that was hardly forced. Then there's the fact that as I've stated before in order for this to be of much import to my points you would have to be making the case that Bismarck's crew status was on a par or inferior to that of the PoW which it clearly was not.
For the record, I;m not saying BS and PoW crews were similarly trained (duh!), but that Bismarck's crew was far from combat ready during Rheinubung.
What exactly in the doucments you listed makes you think that?
Many essential training was not done,
Again what?

Now I'm willing to do the statistical analysis of straddles if you wish but I'll need to know how many salvoes were straddles along with the number of rounds fired in each and which ones to count. For instance you can't straddle with a one gun salvo so those are out. Do we count rangeing or ladder salvoes? How about those in local control? I don't know how it will turn out just as I didn't when I started the hit analysis, indeed I was rather surprised with the result as I suspected that it would depend on the power of the test instead of being as defintive as it was.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Washington

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote:
dunmunro wrote:
You are saying that Bismarck's FC wasn't effected by being under fire, but by the same token, neither was PoW's.
No.
I'm saying more than that.
Bismarck obtained straddles and hits during the entire battle, against 2 manouevreing targets, and while under fire.
PoW obtained less straddles and less hits during the first 5 minutes, against a single manuevreing target, while being completely unopposed.
PoW fired 14 salvos up to 0600, when Hood exploded (in fact salvo 13, the last to hit may have been the last fired, prior to the beginning of the manoeuvres around the sinking Hood), so at that point PoW had fired 41 rounds and scored 3 hits, see:
http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/POW_salvo.jpg
for a summary of rounds fired.

Here's the salvos fired, versus time:
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVa.gif
and here's the chart showing Hood's last position:
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVb.gif

You can see that from salvo 5 to 14, PoW had the range and her fire was effective, and during this interval she fired 10 salvos and 31 rounds, for 3 hits. Clearly, if PoW had a functioning radar system, her fire would have been far more effective, as for the first 5 salvos Bismarck's range was not known.

Bismarck, OTOH, had the advantage of radar and of having her A arcs open. This gave her larger salvo patterns, and a better hit probability per salvo. Bismarck had the added advantage that when Hood exploded, PoW basically sailed right into Bismarck's firing solution, and only a minor adjustment was needed to stay on target. Prinz Eugen began firing at PoW shortly after 0558, so from that point onward PoW was underfire, and from 0600 onward, underfire from both KM ships, and the manouevers needed to deal with that situation disrupted her FC.
Pandora
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Washington

Post by Pandora »

as I see the Prince of Wales was not shooting very well and was very lucky to get those 3 hits.
took 6 salvos to get the first straddle, then missed totally with 7 and 8, straddled with 9, missed again until salvo 13... and again from 14 to 18.
18 salvos = 3 straddles = 3 hits vs a ship with a steady course.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Washington

Post by alecsandros »

lwd wrote: Bismarck had the added advantage that when Hood exploded, PoW basically sailed right into Bismarck's firing solution, and only a minor adjustment was needed to stay on target. Prinz Eugen began firing at PoW shortly after 0558, so from that point onward PoW was underfire, and from 0600 onward, underfire from both KM ships, and the manouevers needed to deal with that situation disrupted her FC.
No.

This is the usual bullshit the internet propagates.
If you were kind enough to read the description of the battle, you will find that Bismarck did not mantain the same FC against PoW after Hood exploded, but fired 2 semi salvos for ranging, which both straddled PoW (than turning hard to avoid Hood's wreckage)
Than, as the British battleship abruptly changed course, the plotted FC became meaningless anyway, as the bearing varied widely throughout the following 8 crucial minutes.

Bismarck was also under fire from Prince of Wales, and that didn't stop her from landing crippling hits on either enemy ship.

HI-PO-CRI-SY.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Washington

Post by alecsandros »

Pandora wrote:as I see the Prince of Wales was not shooting very well and was very lucky to get those 3 hits.
took 6 salvos to get the first straddle, then missed totally with 7 and 8, straddled with 9, missed again until salvo 13... and again from 14 to 18.
18 salvos = 3 straddles = 3 hits vs a ship with a steady course.
Exactly. But the truth is a bitter pill to swallow for many...
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Washington

Post by dunmunro »

Pandora wrote:as I see the Prince of Wales was not shooting very well and was very lucky to get those 3 hits.
took 6 salvos to get the first straddle, then missed totally with 7 and 8, straddled with 9, missed again until salvo 13... and again from 14 to 18.
18 salvos = 3 straddles = 3 hits vs a ship with a steady course.
As I stated PoW did not have a functioning radar system, could not get any optical ranges and she basically had to find the range by gunfire, but when she did find it, she held it until Hood's loss.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Washington

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote:
lwd wrote: Bismarck had the added advantage that when Hood exploded, PoW basically sailed right into Bismarck's firing solution, and only a minor adjustment was needed to stay on target. Prinz Eugen began firing at PoW shortly after 0558, so from that point onward PoW was underfire, and from 0600 onward, underfire from both KM ships, and the manouevers needed to deal with that situation disrupted her FC.
No.

This is the usual bullshit the internet propagates.
If you were kind enough to read the description of the battle, you will find that Bismarck did not mantain the same FC against PoW after Hood exploded, but fired 2 semi salvos for ranging, which both straddled PoW (than turning hard to avoid Hood's wreckage)
Than, as the British battleship abruptly changed course, the plotted FC became meaningless anyway, as the bearing varied widely throughout the following 8 crucial minutes.

Bismarck was also under fire from Prince of Wales, and that didn't stop her from landing crippling hits on either enemy ship.

HI-PO-CRI-SY.
On board the Prinz Eugen, First Artillery Officer Lieutenant P. Jasper, noted the Prince of Wales manoeuvre in his battle report. Also, the German Heavy cruiser commander Captain H. Brinkmann, saw what had happened and having realized that he was coming close to the launching range of its 533mm torpedoes (range 12,000 meters at 30 knots) ordered his Torpedo Officer, Lieutenant Ernst Reimann, to get ready to launch torpedoes as soon as the enemy was within range. Captain Brinkmann had expected that moment to come very soon due to the two ships' relative courses and speeds (46).

The Bismarck meanwhile had changed its target to the Prince of Wales. Since the British battleship was very close to the wreckage of the Hood, the corrections required were very minimal. The seventh salvo of the German battleship (turrets A+B and C+D) was fired to acquire range and ladder from around 15,000 meters. The Prinz Eugen which was still in the lead of the German formation, ahead by about 1,500-1,800 meters, fired her twelfth salvo (turrets A+B and C+D) and soon after her thirteenth (turrets A+B and C+D) from around 14,500 meters.
http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... trait2.htm
Pandora
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Washington

Post by Pandora »

dunmunro wrote:
Pandora wrote:as I see the Prince of Wales was not shooting very well and was very lucky to get those 3 hits.
took 6 salvos to get the first straddle, then missed totally with 7 and 8, straddled with 9, missed again until salvo 13... and again from 14 to 18.
18 salvos = 3 straddles = 3 hits vs a ship with a steady course.
As I stated PoW did not have a functioning radar system, could not get any optical ranges and she basically had to find the range by gunfire, but when she did find it, she held it until Hood's loss.
it doesnt seem to me PoW held the range at all at any time. instead it seems she only got straddles by chance. what happened to salvos 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ?
Post Reply