Washington

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Washington

Post by dunmunro » Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:25 pm

Pandora wrote:
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 ?
You don't appear to have read any prior posts.
You don't get "straddles by chance" against a 28 knot target that is ~18,000 yds away. Salvos 5 to 14 were effective but without radar ranging. Shortly after salvo 13, Hood exploded forcing PoW to make a series of abrupt, evasive, turns to avoid the wreck which through off her firing solution, and then PoW had to turn to open the range, and at the same time Bismarck was also turning away, making a FC solution nearly impossible.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Washington

Post by alecsandros » Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:29 pm

dunmunro wrote: 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.
Again, you are missing the point.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Washington

Post by alecsandros » Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:30 pm

dunmunro wrote:
You don't get "straddles by chance" against a 28 knot target that is ~18,000 yds away. Salvos 5 to 14 were effective but without radar ranging. Shortly after salvo 13, Hood exploded forcing PoW to make a series of abrupt, evasive, turns to avoid the wreck which through off her firing solution, and then PoW had to turn to open the range, and at the same time Bismarck was also turning away, making a FC solution nearly impossible.
Pure bullshit.

what is an "effective" salvo Duncan ?

and what about the fact that PoW couldn't score a single hit when it was taken under fire, while Bismarck scored repeatedly, while under continous British fire ? And yes, Bismarck made a hard turn also, but it reaquired the target after that.

Pandora
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Washington

Post by Pandora » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:04 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Pandora wrote:
dunmunro wrote: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 ?
You don't appear to have read any prior posts.
You don't get "straddles by chance" against a 28 knot target that is ~18,000 yds away. Salvos 5 to 14 were effective but without radar ranging. Shortly after salvo 13, Hood exploded forcing PoW to make a series of abrupt, evasive, turns to avoid the wreck which through off her firing solution, and then PoW had to turn to open the range, and at the same time Bismarck was also turning away, making a FC solution nearly impossible.
... again, PoW needed 6 salvos to get the first straddle... and then, when she was supposed to have the correct range she missed with the 7 and 8 salvos.
then got another straddle with the 9 salvo... and AGAIN when she was supposed to have the correct range she missed with the 10, 11, and 12 salvos.
salvo 13th appeared to straddle... but AGAIN when she was supposed to have the correct range she missed with the 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 salvos.

...and all this against a 28 knot target following a steady course, range between 25,000 and 14,500 yards!

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Washington

Post by dunmunro » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:24 pm

alecsandros wrote:
dunmunro wrote:
You don't get "straddles by chance" against a 28 knot target that is ~18,000 yds away. Salvos 5 to 14 were effective but without radar ranging. Shortly after salvo 13, Hood exploded forcing PoW to make a series of abrupt, evasive, turns to avoid the wreck which through off her firing solution, and then PoW had to turn to open the range, and at the same time Bismarck was also turning away, making a FC solution nearly impossible.
Pure bullshit.

what is an "effective" salvo Duncan ?

and what about the fact that PoW couldn't score a single hit when it was taken under fire, while Bismarck scored repeatedly, while under continous British fire ? And yes, Bismarck made a hard turn also, but it reaquired the target after that.
Most forums ban members who post obscenities and it indicates a complete lack of maturity on your part.

Effective salvos are close enough to the target to be used for accurate corrections to the FC solution. In the absence of radar, which provides continuous ranging, there is always a lag between FC corrections even with a nominally correct FC solution, and even with radar, corrections involving range, speed, and course of the target can never to precise enough to guarantee continuous straddles, so 3 straddles from 9 salvos from salvo 5 to 14 is pretty good shooting. Bismarck had radar, and scored 6 hits from 26 salvos (Bismarck fired 4 gun salvos from her fore and aft turrets, respectively). PoW had no radar and scored 3 hits from 18 salvos. Bismarck's ability to form a solution on PoW was greatly aided by PoW's proximity to Bismarck's former target.

PE did take PoW under fire (around salvo 10-11) prior to the last hit with salvo 13, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, the loss of Hood and the need to avoid her sinking hull forced PoW to make abrupt course changes which degraded her next several salvos.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Washington

Post by dunmunro » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:27 pm

Pandora:
As I stated PoW did not have a functioning radar system, could not get any optical ranges...
You don't appear to have read any prior posts.


see my bolded comment.

Pandora
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Washington

Post by Pandora » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:35 pm

dunmunro wrote:Pandora:
As I stated PoW did not have a functioning radar system, could not get any optical ranges...
You don't appear to have read any prior posts.

see my bolded comment.
that is your own appreciation, but the fact is that PoW was extremely lucky with her shooting considering she never got the correct range with her target.

ede144
Member
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Washington

Post by ede144 » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:31 pm

@dunmro
I wonder were you have the information ftom, that BS used EM II for range taking. I was under the impression that the one on Schnws station was defective. I'm not shure that it was possible to take range ftom an other station than direction.

Regards
Ede

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Washington

Post by dunmunro » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:13 pm

ede144 wrote:@dunmro
I wonder were you have the information ftom, that BS used EM II for range taking. I was under the impression that the one on Schnws station was defective. I'm not shure that it was possible to take range ftom an other station than direction.

Regards
Ede
Bismarck had 3 radars:
http://www.kbismarck.com/controltiri.html
so the loss of one set left 2 more.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Washington

Post by dunmunro » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:17 pm

Pandora wrote:
dunmunro wrote:Pandora:
As I stated PoW did not have a functioning radar system, could not get any optical ranges...
You don't appear to have read any prior posts.

see my bolded comment.
that is your own appreciation, but the fact is that PoW was extremely lucky with her shooting considering she never got the correct range with her target.
PoW, obviously, did get the correct range for at least 3 salvos, however, the problem was holding the range via a correct FC solution (a correct plot based upon target range, target speed, direction and the same for own ship), in the absence of reliable continuous ranges.

Pandora
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Washington

Post by Pandora » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:48 pm

ede144 wrote:I wonder were you have the information ftom, that BS used EM II for range taking. I was under the impression that the one on Schnws station was defective. I'm not shure that it was possible to take range ftom an other station than direction.
iirc one radar was put out of action the night before vs Suffolk, so Bismarck had 2 other radars in service. what it is not clear to me is if they used them for range taking vs Hood-Pow. I am under the impression that at that time they used them just for surveilance that is why the Prinz took the lead the night before to cover the forward sector. also the Baron said that the battle was fought by optical means only.

Pandora
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Washington

Post by Pandora » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:54 pm

dunmunro wrote:PoW, obviously, did get the correct range for at least 3 salvos, however, the problem was holding the range via a correct FC solution (a correct plot based upon target range, target speed, direction and the same for own ship), in the absence of reliable continuous ranges.
why did they fail to get a correct FC solution?

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Washington

Post by alecsandros » Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:44 am

dunmunro wrote:

Most forums ban members who post obscenities and it indicates a complete lack of maturity on your part.
What I find "Obscene" is your blatant distortion of the historical truth.

In naval gunnery, any salvo, straddle, or not, is used to make corrections for the following salvos. Thus, any salvo is "effective", in this interpretation of the word.
Taking your thought a little bit further, it appears that any ship, firing a large number of salvos, with no straddles and no hits, can be called to have fired "effectively", provided each salvo served as correction for the following salvo. Sweet!
Bismarck had radar, and scored 6 hits from 26 salvos (Bismarck fired 4 gun salvos from her fore and aft turrets, respectively). PoW had no radar and scored 3 hits from 18 salvos. Bismarck's ability to form a solution on PoW was greatly aided by PoW's proximity to Bismarck's former target.
Bismarck made continous course alteration throughout the battle, was under fire the whole time, made a radical turn to avoid "torpedoes", and than got back on track and took Prince of Wales under fire, through the smoke screen.
Prince of Wales was UNOPPOSED, fired on a single target, and immediately after being taken under fire, it withdrew at maximum speed.

The FC solution used by Bismarck to fire on PoW changed very rapidly, as PoW was moving at 28-29kts, and manouvreing wildly. The change of course, and the rapid change of bearing between the ships made the "Hood" FC solution obsolete in a matter of seconds. Observing the map with PoW movement after the sinking of the Hood, one can easily observe how little the original course of the Hood has to do with following development of events in the Denmark Strait.
---
If Bismarck would have had 6 minutes to fire unopposed on PoW and Hood, moving in a relatively straight line, it wold have sunk, or crippled them both.

Pandora
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Washington

Post by Pandora » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:11 pm

the problem is that PoW took so long to get the first straddle for whatever reasons. even if you are using optical means only, needing 6 salvos to get a straddle vs a target on a steady course under good visibility... well it is not good.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Washington

Post by alecsandros » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:19 pm

@Pandora
Indeed.

There were many problems onboard PoW:
- the gunnery radars were not functioning
- water was coming over the bow and spray was hindering observation
- the British officers believed the Bismarck was moving at 28kts, when in fact it was doing 30,5. Thus, the correct future position of the German ship was not calculated correctly.
Later,

- at 6:02, the command tower was hit by a 38cm shell which killed all senior officers prsent there, except the captain. This probably made coordonated firing decisions impossible... The PoW ceased fire, only several minutes later reopening fire, with Y turret, on local control.

Post Reply