HMS Hood & USS Arizona Magazine Explosions

[RF]

I think you have mis-interpreted my last post Paul, what I was trying to say was that the existing fires on Hood may have caused the eyewitnesses to the fatal detonation to not clearly identify the flame outburst of that detonation from the existing flames of the fires burning from the earlier hits. This I think is a significant point in that we don't know (and probably never will) exactly how many hits struck Hood prior to it blowing up and how many fires were already raging internally. The eyewitnesses saw what they saw from a considerable distance in a split second and eye interpretation of that event is subjective.

As far as can be ascertained about the fires we know about yes I think it is unlikely that they caused the fatal detonation or played a part in the ships disintegration. What we don't know is the damage and fire not visible to the eyewitnesses. That can only be conjecture, but given the pasting Hood was subjected to it is likely there were hits we just don't know about and there is a possibility that they could have played a role in the final detonation.

[paulcadogan]

Understood. But my thoughts on that would be that the eyewitness testimony pretty much covered Bismarck's fall of shot, with the consensus being five salvoes with the first being short ahead, the second going over, the third straddling and hitting, the fourth a close short and the fifth straddling and hitting. The resulting hits were possibly the spotting top with the third - we know it was not the boat deck - and obviously the fatal hit with the fifth, with Captain Leach observing 3 splashes from that group, which should have been four shells, suggesting one hit.

Prinz Eugen's HE shells would not have penetrated too deeply to cause significant internal fires, but most likely caused the hit at the base of the bridge, before she shifted to PoW at 5:58.

So my view is that it is doubtful that there were any others and we can fairly safely attribute the final explosion to one hit. BUT in the circumstances what you are suggesting is not impossible and obviously we will never know.

What is certain is that no matter what damage had already been done, the explosion of the 15-inch magazines with their 112 tons of cordite would disintegrate that section of the hull - armour or no armour.

[alecsandros]

Understood. But my thoughts on that would be that the eyewitness testimony pretty much covered Bismarck's fall of shot, with the consensus being five salvoes with the first being short ahead, the second going over, the third straddling and hitting, the fourth a close short and the fifth straddling and hitting. The resulting hits were possibly the spotting top with the third - we know it was not the boat deck - and obviously the fatal hit with the fifth, with Captain Leach observing 3 splashes from that group, which should have been four shells, suggesting one hit.

Paul,

It's a little more complicated than that, as each of the 5 "salvos" contained 2 semi-salvos fired independently, giving a total of 10 semi-salvos with 4 shells each.

Some accounts indicate that each of the semi-salvos of salvo 5 obtained 1 hit.

[paulcadogan]

It's a little more complicated than that, as each of the 5 "salvos" contained 2 semi-salvos fired independently, giving a total of 10 semi-salvos with 4 shells each.

Some accounts indicate that each of the semi-salvos of salvo 5 obtained 1 hit.

I had thought about that and wondered how that affected the count by the British witnesses. Based on the battle film, the semi-salvoes were one or two seconds apart so the fall of shot would probably be counted as one salvo by them. Captain Leach reported 3 splashes in a straddle which gave him the impression that a shell "had arrived aboard Hood". He didn't note the other four (which does not mean they did not occur). Some observers didn't associate the explosion with any splashes - possibly due to the time taken for the magazine ignition to propagate to conflagration.

Can you say which accounts note the second half of the salvo?

[alecsandros]

Can you say which accounts note the second half of the salvo?

Gladly,

It an interpretation of one of the accounts from the Baron's book.
It's legthier discussion here:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=652&start=405#p35644

But of course, there's no sure way of knowing it...

[paulcadogan]

Thanks Alec, I've always wondered what exactly that quote from Schneider meant. To make it easier for everyone it's translation is:

"Wow! Was that a misfire? That really ate into him." This was followedby the exclamation that Hood was blowing up. I had interpreted it similarly to Djoser in the refered thread - that the flash of flame from Hood was being interpreted as a malfunction of Hood's guns, not as missing shell splashes.

So the interpretation could be that some of Bismarck's guns had failed to fire in the salvo in question and Schneider was expressing amazement at the effect of the "misfire" affected salvo - observing the resulting major flash of flame from Hood. That would also explain only 3 splashes being seen by Leach. But truly that DOES suggest that there could have been more than one hit - as we would not know how many of Bismarck's guns misfired.

So...I concede!

[RF]

Surely if one of Bismarcks' guns had failed to fire that would have been noticed and reported to the gunnery officers? Or at least some battle record of the failure be recorded..... yet I haven't seen any comment by anyone about a gunnery failure.

We aren't talking about POW or even KGV here, Bismarcks' main armament was fully functional was it not?

[tommy303]

It seems evident that Schneider only counted three shell splashes, and his query over the gunnery intercom might have been directed at the rating at the SFS Anzieger which would have shown the current status of each gun. If that was the case he was inquiring if a gun had miss fired--if none had miss fired in that salvo, then the unaccounted for shell might therefore have been a hit. Unfortunately we do not have the reply he was given--if indeed one was given at all before Hood began to blow up.

As to the possibility of a gun miss firing or missing a salvo for some reason or another, there is circumstantial evidence that Bismarck did not fire the full number of shells she should have been able to fire in the number of salvos unleashed at Hood and Prince of Wales. Lindemann signaled Brinkmann in Prinz Eugen that Bismarck had fired 93 shells. Being an odd number, it seems indicative of at least one gun having not fired in a salvo, and possible more than that; the closest number divisible by four (salvos) or eight (broadsides) is 96, so one could reason that Bismarck had a few problems. The naval inspectorate report on her readiness does site some problems with main battery cartridges which lead to jamming the hoists. This was due to the end caps of the main charge brass cases coming loose when handled roughly . In at least one instance, a loose end cap wound up jamming the entire hoist mechanism for a turret during a practice shoot. However, one should not read to much into Bismarck achieving a 98.6% output instead of 100%. In both practice shoots and combat, battleships rarely had completely trouble-free main armament operation and the occasional missed salvo was not out of the norm. Prinz Eugen, during the same action had problems with her main battery as well:

One technical problem arose in the battery so that B-Turret totally failed to fire one salvo and then fired 13 salvos from the left barrel only. . . . Furthermore operational errors occured that caused the failure to fire four salvos from Turret A, while Turrets C and D missed one salvo each.

From Prinz Eugen's KTB.

[paulcadogan]

93 shells equates to 11 full broadsides plus 5 shells. 5:55 to 6:09 is 14 minutes, so that's less than one broadside per minute. Given the rate of fire Bismarck was capable of, plus we see her showing that capability in the film, it is therefore possible that her output of shells per salvo was less than maximum.

[Anachronus]

Would the water depth have had any influence? Pearly is only around 40' deep.

[tommy303]

93 shells equates to 11 full broadsides plus 5 shells. 5:55 to 6:09 is 14 minutes, so that's less than one broadside per minute. Given the rate of fire Bismarck was capable of, plus we see her showing that capability in the film, it is therefore possible that her output of shells per salvo was less than maximum.

Yes, however one does the math, her output is three shells less than one would have expected, 96 being equal to 12 full broadsides or 24 turret group salvos. In at least one photograph, she appears to be firing with only Bruno, Caesar and Dora in what appears to be a six gun broadside, while Anton is trained on a forward bearing. This would be at least two of the three unfired shells.

http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_di ... page_9.htm

[alecsandros]

@Thomas

Antonio's battle reconstruction mentions 104 maximum possible shots attempts by Bismarck. This is the most used number when comparing gunnery efficiency at DS.
But, we can't be sure if all those 104 shots were actualy attempted, because, as you've pointed out, there are indications that some turrets were not trained against the enemy, for some reason...

[pg55555]

.

Ignore the robotic maths freaks who think all guns fire perfectly everytime on time - they've been playing too many wargames.

In real life even in practice after the guns and turrets have been specially prepared and the weather good "real" output is usually below 95%. ( "Real" as there are reports of navies, including the USN, of fiddling the figures to leave out what would be normal problems - the same applies to accuracy figures where excessive results were "forgotten" ).

ON THE MOST BASIC LEVEL - a lot depends on how a navy organised its firing of salvoes/broadsides. I can only say what went for the RN - others might vary.

For the RN in "director firing" the firing officer had a gong or bell which rang after so many seconds (depending on circumstances) after the last salvo/broadside. In front of him would be a bank of lights representing the guns that were ready and he had a trigger which which when he pulled it fired all available guns. IF, say, he was firing 4 gun salvos and only three lights came on he could either wait and see if the fourth gun was just a second or two late or else pull his trigger and only fire three guns and "lose" a shot. The firing officer would be in touch with each turret and the bridge and would have to make a judgement. Sometimes (mostly at "fighting ranges") the need for fast salvos would PROBABLY mean firing "on time" despite losing some shells, whereas at long and especially extreme range the need for more shells to enable good spotting would PROBABLY mean a delay was more acceptable - but individual fleet, squadron or ship commanders might have different views. When "firing in concentration" as Hood and POW were at the Denmark Strait then the timing was ESSENTIAL such that the salvos from each ship did not interfere with each other - the loss of odd shots was a well known factor which was accepted as part of the advantage of concentration firing.

Live in the real world, not the silliness of the maths gurus.

.

[RF]

As to the possibility of a gun miss firing or missing a salvo for some reason or another, there is circumstantial evidence that Bismarck did not fire the full number of shells she should have been able to fire in the number of salvos unleashed at Hood and Prince of Wales. Lindemann signaled Brinkmann in Prinz Eugen that Bismarck had fired 93 shells. Being an odd number, it seems indicative of at least one gun having not fired in a salvo, and possible more than that; the closest number divisible by four (salvos) or eight (broadsides) is 96, so one could reason that Bismarck had a few problems. The naval inspectorate report on her readiness does site some problems with main battery cartridges which lead to jamming the hoists. This was due to the end caps of the main charge brass cases coming loose when handled roughly . In at least one instance, a loose end cap wound up jamming the entire hoist mechanism for a turret during a practice shoot. However, one should not read to much into Bismarck achieving a 98.6% output instead of 100%. In both practice shoots and combat, battleships rarely had completely trouble-free main armament operation and the occasional missed salvo was not out of the norm. Prinz Eugen, during the same action had problems with her main battery as well:

One technical problem arose in the battery so that B-Turret totally failed to fire one salvo and then fired 13 salvos from the left barrel only. . . . Furthermore operational errors occured that caused the failure to fire four salvos from Turret A, while Turrets C and D missed one salvo each.

From Prinz Eugen's KTB.

I'm curious that Mullenheim-Rechberg never made a comment about that, being a gunnery officer (though of course Bruno turret wouldn't be directly his concern) and as such wou;d be privy to any problems, after the action?

[Ersatz Yorck]

A turret or gun missing one or more or even several salvoes due to mechanical breakdowns or battle damage is very common, they are very frequently mentioned in eywitness accounts from Jutland, where far more havy rounds were fired than in all the rest of the worlds naval battles together.