Hood Gunnery on May 24
Moderator: Bill Jurens
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
But there is also the possibility for
"Prince of Wales - you have 6 guns bearing on the enemy NOW. Fire on the Bismarck, as I fire on the Prinz Eugen with my 4 guns bearing NOW"
"Prince of Wales - you have 6 guns bearing on the enemy NOW. Fire on the Bismarck, as I fire on the Prinz Eugen with my 4 guns bearing NOW"
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
AND
"God damn it, those ships are perfectly alike... My intel must be wrong... it's Bismarck AND Tirpitz TOGETHER"... Bismarck must be flagship and leading... I'll engage the enemy flagship with my own flagship... So... Prince of Wales - open fire to the enemy to the right !
"God damn it, those ships are perfectly alike... My intel must be wrong... it's Bismarck AND Tirpitz TOGETHER"... Bismarck must be flagship and leading... I'll engage the enemy flagship with my own flagship... So... Prince of Wales - open fire to the enemy to the right !
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 954
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
As soon as the Germans open fire it is obvious which one is a battleship and which is not.
- paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
No...as far as Holland knew, PoW had been ordered to target the leading ship and would have assumed she was following orders. He would not have known of McMullen's and Leach's "mutiny".alecsandros wrote:But there is also the possibility for
"Prince of Wales - you have 6 guns bearing on the enemy NOW. Fire on the Bismarck, as I fire on the Prinz Eugen with my 4 guns bearing NOW"
So if he was unsure which was Bismarck and his own ship's guns are settled on the lead ship and ready to fire, why mess up his own Gunnery Officer - tell PoW to shift target right...
Exactly! And we have Ted Brigg's statement that the report came from the spotting top..."We're firing at the wrong ship, Bismarck is on the right not the left." "We're" firing" suggests it was after Hood opened fire and not before when the signal to PoW was timed. No further signal to PoW was needed because the order for her had already been given....Steve Crandell wrote:As soon as the Germans open fire it is obvious which one is a battleship and which is not.
IMHO this is the truly plausible way to explain Hood continuing to fire at PG despite the 0552 signal to PoW to shift target right....
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
- paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
YIKES!! If that had been the case there would most likely have been quite an uproar on the compass platform followed by a frantic signal to the Admiralty and Tovey, followed by a rapid turn to port to open A-arcs immediately - deck armour or no deck armour...alecsandros wrote:"God damn it, those ships are perfectly alike... My intel must be wrong... it's Bismarck AND Tirpitz TOGETHER"...
Briggs and Dundas would have known.....
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
... One dubious question (another one... )
When Norfolk observed the enemy at around 5:41, did he observe/transmit that Bismarck was behind Prinz Eugen ?
When Norfolk observed the enemy at around 5:41, did he observe/transmit that Bismarck was behind Prinz Eugen ?
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1585
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
Norfolk observed/transmitted "one battleship". A cruiser isn't mentioned.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
Could Holland derive the position of the battleship relative to Hood from NOrfolk's message ? [ex. by triangulation]Herr Nilsson wrote:Norfolk observed/transmitted "one battleship". A cruiser isn't mentioned.
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1585
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
Well, assuming Norfolk is shadowing from behind it implies that Bismarck is the second in line. Norfolk signaled her own position as well.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
Interesting
- paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
We don't know if or when Holland was informed of Norfolk's report. He already had the enemy in sight. And in any case - he ordered both his ships to concentrate on the leading ship AFTER Norfolk's report was sent. So he did not consider it at the time....
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4349
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
Another part of the story: could it be possible that Luetjens was deliberately using the "silence" of his guns, for as long as possible, as to confuse the enemy over the real identity of his ships , until his own artillery would enter killing grounds ? [50% of max ballistic range - this was first proposed by Tommy, IIRC]
- paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
Interesting thought. Could be supported by the fact that Luetjens kept PG in line in violation of KM doctrine....drawing Hood's fire.alecsandros wrote:nother part of the story: could it be possible that Luetjens was deliberately using the "silence" of his guns, for as long as possible, as to confuse the enemy over the real identity of his ships , until his own artillery would enter killing grounds ? [50% of max ballistic range - this was first proposed by Tommy, IIRC]
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
For those who may not have seen it. I would recommend enlarging it slightly to give a better view, but this is how Prinz Eugen and Bismarck would have appeared to observers in Hood at about the time Holland gave the order to open fire.
This was initially on the Hood website, but I do not know if it is still there.
This was initially on the Hood website, but I do not know if it is still there.
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
- paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Re: Hood Gunnery on May 24
Interesting Thomas, but that can't be totally correct.
PG and Bismarck were too far apart to be seen simultaneously in a single optical device. But it does illustrate that Bismarck being 3000 m astern of PG, and if they were partially or fully hull down, would have appeared smaller, adding to the identification difficulty.
Paul
PG and Bismarck were too far apart to be seen simultaneously in a single optical device. But it does illustrate that Bismarck being 3000 m astern of PG, and if they were partially or fully hull down, would have appeared smaller, adding to the identification difficulty.
Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man