Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 768
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by paul.mercer » Fri May 17, 2019 5:17 pm

Hi Alberto,
You posted the other day:
No, we don't, because no data is available for KGV ordered shots (you have assumed them, without any evidence supporting). In addition, KGV fired for 20 minutes from shorter distance at a significantly slower Rate of Fire (1.7 salvo per minute vs 1.9 average for PoW, despite the need to respect time sectors...). If you fire comfortably slowly, the risk of misfires and minor problems is logically much lower...).
For sure the big problem (the jam of the turret) would have occurred on KGV as well as (if ever really solved...) it was addressed only much later on the KGV class ships.
Would I be correct in assuming that KGV fired more slowly than PoW for two reasons, 1) the RN were now very aware of the quad turret problems that could occur when fired quickly in the heat of battle and (2 they knew that Bismarck was crippled and could not get away so they could reasonably take their time, particularly as they had Rodney with them?
Thanks,
Paul

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by HMSVF » Fri May 17, 2019 6:19 pm

paul.mercer wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 5:17 pm
Hi Alberto,
You posted the other day:
No, we don't, because no data is available for KGV ordered shots (you have assumed them, without any evidence supporting). In addition, KGV fired for 20 minutes from shorter distance at a significantly slower Rate of Fire (1.7 salvo per minute vs 1.9 average for PoW, despite the need to respect time sectors...). If you fire comfortably slowly, the risk of misfires and minor problems is logically much lower...).
For sure the big problem (the jam of the turret) would have occurred on KGV as well as (if ever really solved...) it was addressed only much later on the KGV class ships.
Would I be correct in assuming that KGV fired more slowly than PoW for two reasons, 1) the RN were now very aware of the quad turret problems that could occur when fired quickly in the heat of battle and (2 they knew that Bismarck was crippled and could not get away so they could reasonably take their time, particularly as they had Rodney with them?
Thanks,
Paul
Would I be correct in assuming that KGV fired more slowly than PoW for two reasons, 1) the RN were now very aware of the quad turret problems that could occur when fired quickly in the heat of battle and (2 they knew that Bismarck was crippled and could not get away so they could reasonably take their time, particularly as they had Rodney with them?
Dipping in.


The first ? Possibly. If you have a system with snags in it why would you up the rate ?

The second point. Bismarck was going nowhere apart from the bottom of the Atlantic, but the elephant in the room was the fuel situation.Short of mad old Winston's plan the 2 RN battleships would have to get the job done reasonably quickly.

Incidentally I was reading a great book about "ABC" (Cunningham). It appears that even this great admiral was in Churchill's sights at one point. He obviously thought that he (Churchill) could do a better job. It's a pity he hadn't put half of these Admirals in a invidious position in the first place with his interference!

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri May 17, 2019 6:31 pm

Hi Paul,
I honestly don't know why KGV fired more slowly (despite being closer and not having to respect time sectors as PoW).

Your explanations are both possible (even if RN was not yet aware of any detail about the problems happened on board PoW three days before at that time) but I would also tend to recognize PoW's 7 weeks day and (lately) night very intense training as a reason why she fired so fast, albeit with possibly more failures (both mechanical and human) due to this speed.
On the other hand, weather conditions surely affected spotting of shots on May 27, slowying down a bit the Rate of Fire.

For sure the two situations were extremely different:
- on May 24 Holland had to force engines to full speed to prevent Bismarck gain more and more bearing and to escape. There was the risk that Bismarck could sow her pursuers, had a long battle and chase started.. Priority was to stop Bismarck, delivering the mortal blow as quickly as possible.
-on May 26 evening Tovey had already decided (debatable decision IMHO...) to wait for daylight to have the best conditions. No hurry was there also on May 27, as approach was very carefully calculated and only at 8:48 fire was opened (not surely at dawn on May end...). Precision and reliability of guns was a priority more than RoF, despite the urgency of the fuel problem.


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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by dunmunro » Fri May 17, 2019 7:14 pm

paul.mercer wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 5:17 pm
Hi Alberto,
You posted the other day:
No, we don't, because no data is available for KGV ordered shots (you have assumed them, without any evidence supporting). In addition, KGV fired for 20 minutes from shorter distance at a significantly slower Rate of Fire (1.7 salvo per minute vs 1.9 average for PoW, despite the need to respect time sectors...). If you fire comfortably slowly, the risk of misfires and minor problems is logically much lower...).
For sure the big problem (the jam of the turret) would have occurred on KGV as well as (if ever really solved...) it was addressed only much later on the KGV class ships.
Would I be correct in assuming that KGV fired more slowly than PoW for two reasons, 1) the RN were now very aware of the quad turret problems that could occur when fired quickly in the heat of battle and (2 they knew that Bismarck was crippled and could not get away so they could reasonably take their time, particularly as they had Rodney with them?
Thanks,
Paul
A major factor in the final action is that the wind was blowing 30 knots from almost dead astern of KGV and Rodney, at the opening of the action. This pushed the funnel and cordite smoke towards Bismarck and hampered visibility.

Turret jams were not inevitable. At 0859 KGV did "an emergency turn" to open her A arcs and no jams occurred.

The action against Bismarck was fought in much more severe weather conditions and poorer visibility. The decision by Tovey to fight his battleships in open order meant that it was also easier for either RN battleship to mistake the other's shell splashes for their own, because they could no longer coordinate their fire. However, there is no reason for suspecting that PoW was maintaining an especially high RoF, or that KGV or Rodney couldn't do the same.

KGV's GAR states that the 14in guns "...were doing extremely well..." up to 0920.
KGV opened fire at 0848 and from 0853 to 0913 she fired 34 salvos with type 284 radar ranging. At 0913 the type 284 brokedown and KGV's RoF slowed. At 0920 KGV's A turret jammed, after having fired an average 23 rounds/gun according to her GAR. Since we know that RN ships fired 1/2 their guns per salvo, we know that at 0920 A and B turrets had fired at least 46 salvos and with the output from Y turret beginning at 0900, we know that KGV had fired approximately 200 x 14in rounds at 0920. Rodney had opened fire at 0847 and at 0920 had fired 44 salvos and by 0921 had fired 46 salvos. I will post a pdf file showing Rodney's record of salvos fired:

http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/Rod_salvo.pdf

which will also show that she fired for many minutes at 2 salvos/min during the first ~30 mins of the action including two salvos/minute for the first two minutes, and then a 1 minute pause, and then 2 salvos/minute for the next 5 minutes, this despite the much more severe weather conditions. We can also see that Rodney and KGV were firing a very similar number of salvos in the same time frame.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri May 17, 2019 7:36 pm

Hello everybody,

weather conditions were worse, but range was much shorter on May 27, allowing a much faster RoF.

As a matter of facts, KGV fired achieving only an average RoF of 1.7 salvos per minute during 20 minutes (8:53-9:13)...
PoW average RoF during the battle was 1.9 salvos per minute, from a much longer distance and having to respect time sectors with Hood.


Bye, Alberto



P.S.
"she fired for many minutes at 2 salvos/min during the first ~30 mins... including two salvos/minute for the first two minutes, and then a 1 minute pause, and then 2 salvos/minute for the next 5 minutes,"
In which interval of time did Rodney achieve a 2 salvos /minute RoF (http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/Rod_salvo.pdf) ?
IMO 14 salvos in 8 minutes is a RoF of 1.75 not 2 but I can wait for a better calculation.....
What about minute 08:57 ? and 08:59 ? Forgotten ? Let's try to be serious in calculating an "average" RoF....
"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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by dunmunro » Fri May 17, 2019 8:35 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 7:36 pm
Hello everybody,

weather conditions were worse, but range was much shorter on May 27, allowing a much faster RoF.

As a matter of facts, KGV fired achieving only an average RoF of 1.7 salvos per minute during 20 minutes (8:53-9:13)...
PoW average RoF during the battle was 1.9 salvos per minute, from a much longer distance and having to respect time sectors with Hood.


Bye, Alberto



P.S.
"she fired for many minutes at 2 salvos/min during the first ~30 mins... including two salvos/minute for the first two minutes, and then a 1 minute pause, and then 2 salvos/minute for the next 5 minutes,"
In which interval of time did Rodney achieve a 2 salvos /minute RoF (http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/Rod_salvo.pdf) ?
IMO 14 salvos in 8 minutes is a RoF of 1.75 not 2 but I can wait for a better calculation.....
What about minute 08:57 ? and 08:59 ? Forgotten ? Let's try to be serious in calculating an "average" RoF....
The very much higher winds and steeper seas created much less favourable gunnery conditions with KGV experiencing more own ship motion and more severe conditions for her FC systems.

Rodney's salvo chart shows that her first 18 salvos were fired from 23500 yds to 21000 yds, so on average this was a much longer range than for PoW. KGV's ranges were 24600 yds at 0848 down to 16k yds at 0859, for for the first nine minutes ranges were 24600 yds down to ~17k yds, and again this was farther than for PoW's 25k yds - ~14500 yds in the first 9 minutes.

You can see the intervals where Rodney was maintaining 2 salvos/min, and I pointed out when during her first 9 minutes.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri May 17, 2019 9:35 pm

Hello everybody,
"You can see the intervals where Rodney was maintaining 2 salvos/min, and I pointed out when during her first 9 minutes"
No I can't. You have picked up minutes at your convenience and you are trying to "propose" here that the RoF was 2 salvos/minute in convenient intervals.
Over the first 9 minutes Rodney fired 14 salvos for an (approximate) RoF of 1.55 salvos/minute (http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/Rod_salvo.pdf).... Please be more precise in your calculations when you post.
Over the (less convenient for you) first 20 minutes, the RoF was 1.5 salvo/minute (30 salvos).


Using your approach, I can say PoW had a RoF of 2 salvos/minute between 5:53 and 5:56 (4 minutes, 8 salvos) or she had a RoF of 3 salvos per minute in minute 6:00 (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... encIVa.gif).... Don't you see how incorrect is your method ?


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri May 17, 2019 9:42 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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by dunmunro » Fri May 17, 2019 9:40 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 9:35 pm
Hello everybody,
"You can see the intervals where Rodney was maintaining 2 salvos/min, and I pointed out when during her first 9 minutes"
No I can't. You have picked up minutes at your convenience and you are trying to "propose" here that the RoF was 2 salvos/minute in convenient intervals. Over the first 9 minutes Rodney fired 14 salvos for an (approximate) RoF of 1.55 salvos/minute ().... Please be more precise in your calculations when you post.


Using your approach, I can say PoW had a RoF of 2 salvos/minute between 5:53 and 5:56 (4 minutes, 8 salvos) or she had a RoF of 3 salvos per minute in minute 6:00 (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... encIVa.gif).... Don't you see how incorrect is your method ?


Bye, Alberto
Turn your argument around and replace KGV with PoW. Does PoW's salvo rate stay the same in the poorer visibility and sea conditions? Is KGV's salvo rate likely to increase with better visibility, smoother seas, and no other ships firing at Bismarck?

The answers are pretty obvious.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri May 17, 2019 9:44 pm

Hello everybody,
"Turn your argument around and..."
No, stay on topic (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&p=83626#p83624) even if you are in error. Admit you have proposed an incorrect statement, trying to say that Rodney fired at a rate of 2 salvos/minute. Let's close a point before moving on speaking of KGV.

Else admit that PoW fired 3 salvos/minute...
I really can't stand this "smart tactic" (...) of changing argument when caught blatantly wrong in a discussion....


Rodney RoF in the first minute was always around 1.4 - 1.6 salvos/minute. Full Stop.


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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by dunmunro » Fri May 17, 2019 10:11 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 9:44 pm
Hello everybody,
"Turn your argument around and..."
No, stay on topic () and finally admit you have stated another incorrect statement, trying to say that Rodney fired at a rate of 2 salvos/minute. Full Stop.

Else admit that PoW fired 3 salvos/minute...


Bye, Alberto
This is what I stated earlier:
which will also show that she fired for many minutes at 2 salvos/min during the first ~30 mins of the action including two salvos/minute for the first two minutes, and then a 1 minute pause, and then 2 salvos/minute for the next 5 minutes, this despite the much more severe weather conditions. We can also see that Rodney and KGV were firing a very similar number of salvos in the same time frame.
And from 0900-0905 Rodney fired 11 salvos and from 0918 to 0931 she fired 26 salvos.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Byron Angel » Fri May 17, 2019 11:07 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:43 pm
Hello everybody,
Q.E.D. (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&p=83612#p83611)

I don't see any "difficult communication" at all, just I see clearly the unwillingness to admit someone has put in my mouth what I have not said:
I wrote: "PoW "lost the plot" after 6:00, when the ship initially heeled violently due to avoiding maneuvers and then turned hard away at full speed under smoke, not because she was "under fire" viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=90#p83593
Here another simpler question: "what was the impact of the 7 shells on PoW main guns ?" Please answer as I do below to your "simpler"question.

Leach took evasive maneuvers becuase of Hood sinking and ordered a hard turn away because... of his own fears (you asked me why...).


In any case, there was no impact on PoW main guns action and direction as a consequence of the 7 received hits (3 from Bismarck o/w only 2 acknowledged at the time, and 4 from PG). Full Stop.


Bye, Alberto
- - -

"what was the impact of the 7 shells on PoW main guns ?"

>>>>> What does that have to do with anything at all? The true issue at hand was the tactical situation faced by the ship herself. Prince of Wales had just been hit SEVEN times in the space of a few minutes in the midst of a gun fight at decisive range with an apparently intact and undamaged opponent that outnumbered him in functional main battery guns, outmatched him in both caliber and weight of fire, clearly exhibited a far more a reliable main battery and had a perfect FC solution. Meanwhile Leach's ship had proven unable to maintain a consistent gunnery solution and the functionality of his remaining main battery guns was a moment-to-moment dice roll.

Leach was faced with a stark choice:
(a) continue in this patently inferior condition and hope that a further succession of hits in similarly rapid succession would not follow.
-or-
(b) evade and break off from a tactically bad situation.

- - -

"Leach took evasive maneuvers becuase of Hood sinking and ordered a hard turn away because... of his own fears."

>>>>> We finally get to the bottom of the issue. This is IMO the insupportable Achilles heel of your argument - the tail that wags the entire dog in almost every respect.


B

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by dunmunro » Sat May 18, 2019 2:16 am

Indeed, Leach knew that he would be subjected to a huge volume of fire from both KM ships and could only engage Bismarck in return with his malfunctioning main battery as his secondary battery, which could produce a massive volume of fire, was completely silent.

Captain Patterson on KGV, faced with the loss of much of his 14in output after 0920, wrote in his GAR:
At 0921 the starboard [5.25in] battery was ordered to open fire the range being then
11,400 yards.
A considerable number of straddles and hits were obtained and there is no
doubt that these guns, with their high rate of fire, can have a most devastating
affect on the unarmoured portion of a capital ship
And Leach was facing an even larger volume of fire from 38cm, 20.3cm, 15cm, and 10.2cm guns.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat May 18, 2019 6:56 am

Hello verybody,
"what was the impact of the 7 shells on PoW main guns ?"
no answer from someone who simply wrote a wrong statement: "when finally taken under effective fire by Bismarck Prince of Wales completely lost the plot".
I don't think it's productive to discuss in this way....


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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat May 18, 2019 7:12 am

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: " from 0900-0905 Rodney fired 11 salvos...."
Why are you posting incorret information in a public forum ?

Would you mind posting the exact salvo sequence numbers fired by Rodney from minute 9:00 till 9:05 (I count only 8 of them on the original Rodney salvo plot....not on the wrong .pdf file you have posted from an incorrect secondary source) ?
Answer please.


However, if you insist peaking up "convenient time intervals" then....
"Over the first 9 minutes Rodney fired 14 salvos for an (approximate) RoF of 1.55 salvos/minute.
Over the (less convenient for you) first 20 minutes, the RoF was 1.5 salvo/minute (30 salvos)."

and

"Using your approach, I can say that PoW had a RoF of 2 salvos/minute during the battle (9 minutes, 18 salvos) or
that she had a RoF of 2,33 salvos/minute during thre minutes (5:58-6:00, 7 salvos) or
that she had a RoF of 3 salvos per minute in one minute 6:00 (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... encIVa.gif).... "
Don't you see how incorrect is your method ?
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat May 18, 2019 7:22 am, edited 2 times 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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by dunmunro » Sat May 18, 2019 7:18 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 7:12 am
Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: " from 0900-0905 Rodney fired 11 salvos and from 0918 to 0931 she fired 26 salvos."
Why are you posting incorret information ?

Would you mind posting the exact salvo sequence numbers fired from minute 9:00 till 9:05 (I count 8 of them on the original Rodney salvo plot....not on the wrong .pdf file you have posted from a secondary source)
Why not post your salvo plot so we can all see it?

Post Reply