Bismarck firing procedures at DS

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Jose,
despite all the errors in the Norfolk GAR (timings and distances...) I trust its statement that "fire was not open owing the impossibility of seeing fall of shots" and agree with Mr.Dunmunro.

Therefore, even if the smoke is not moving to the right (but who knows what was the wind situation in that exact position...), I tend to exclude that it can be a shell splash if not a 5,25", as no British ship was firing except PoW at that time, while Germans cannot have fired so short and totally out of line (if it is a fall of shot, it's 1000-3000 meters distance from PG depending on caliber and explosive charge, and not even in the direction of Hood remains...).



Bye, Alberto

[swpz]

swpz wrote: "So assuming that Bismarck fired 3 ranging salvos of 2 shells each....."

Hi swpz,
I understand both from Jasper Gunnery Report (http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/pg-ktb.zip), from the German firing experts here and from the Baron account in his book that the standard German procedure was to fire an initial full salvo (Vollsalve) of 8 shells to correct for bearing (line).
Then a Gabelgruppe of 3 semi-salvos of 4 shells each (with different ranges) in order to establish the range. PG fired 2 Vollsalve but only because it was impossible for Jasper to see the fall of shots of the first one.

Bye, Alberto

Hello Alberto, thanks for the explanation.

The part about firing a full 8 salvo is very interesting because it would mean the British did not account for the first "full" salvo which was fired simply as standard practice. The British accounts from Hood for example note that Bismarck hit them on the 5th salvo with the salvos falling: ahead- astern - straddle with hit (spotting top) - short - straddle with hit (detonation). These accounts are also matched with those from PoW where 4 guns salvos were observed throughout.

So if the British simply omitted the initial 8 gun salvo and only started counting from the moment the shells started landing nearby then the 40 starts to make more sense but it still doesn't completely factor out as: 8+ 4x5 = 28. Were 40 shots ordered and only 28 fired maybe? Now maybe the British also missed the 3 ranging salvos as well and only started counting from the time Bismarck began full salvo fire on Hood? This is possible but it doesn't fit the accounts of both Hood and PoW crew who were observing from the start.

Of course if we presume that the British either did not see or didn't bother to record the first full salvo and the 3 ranging salvos then the numbers indeed add up as 8+4+4+4 = 20 + 4 (the observed 4 gun salvos) x 5 = 40 shells total.

The question then becomes, why or how could the British miss such a thing as 15" naval gunfire coming your way?

The output of Bismarck that day was already incredibly low; as pointed out, for roughly 15 minutes of battle, 93 shells being fired is less than 1 per minute per gun. It's almost as if Bismarck was ranging the entire time as that would then make sense; one doesn't fire the next salvo until the fall of shot has been observed. So regardless of the "full salvos" command; it never happened?

But it did happen as shown on the film where A+B and C+D were firing only 25 seconds apart at times. Yet had Bismarck kept up that rate of fire there would have probably been a) more hits and b) a lot more than 93 shells fired!

Weird battle all things considered.

[wadinga]

Hello All,

despite all the errors in the Norfolk GAR (timings and distances)

There can be nothing wrong with Norfolk's rangefinder distance, within the limitations of the system. Fabricated courses, positions and speeds can't compete with real measurements. As for the time I suspect the timing on the Admiralty Fire Control Table was simply not synchronised with ship'/chronometer time. AFCT needs accurate internal timekeeping for fire control purposes but it is irrelevant what GMT time it is. Unless one sets it up accurately to local or Zulu time it will have a fixed offset. The table could even have been set, stopped later for some reason and then restarted with a different offset. Norfolk should report zone Bravo time, but the table time may have reported complete with offset.


Careful swpz! There is a fixed timetable round here and if you question it you could be labelled "hooligan/denier".

All the best

wadinga

[dunmunro]

Hello All,

despite all the errors in the Norfolk GAR (timings and distances)

There can be nothing wrong with Norfolk's rangefinder distance, within the limitations of the system. Fabricated courses, positions and speeds can't compete with real measurements. As for the time I suspect the timing on the Admiralty Fire Control Table was simply not synchronised with ship'/chronometer time. AFCT needs accurate internal timekeeping for fire control purposes but it is irrelevant what GMT time it is. Unless one sets it up accurately to local or Zulu time it will have a fixed offset. The table could even have been set, stopped later for some reason and then restarted with a different offset. Norfolk should report zone Bravo time, but the table time may have reported complete with offset.


Careful swpz! There is a fixed timetable round here and if you question it you could be labelled "hooligan/denier".

All the best

wadinga

The AFCT has a salvo timing stop watch and the AFCT plot mechanism runs at a very accurate rate but it has no internal clock per se. Once the paper plot (which runs at a very precise rate) starts a time reference can be marked on it (for example Hood's opening salvo at 552:30), and then used to time future events by referring back to the reference mark. Naturally, this means that the plot cannot be used as an absolute reference for time but only as a relative timer from the index mark.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi swpz,
your doubts are correct (and please don't even pay attention to a poor looser insinuations who, unable to counter arguments, started insulting and mocking, getting the well-deserved title of deniers at any cost A fair discussion is always accepted).

you wrote: " ...it doesn't fit the accounts of both Hood and PoW crew who were observing from the start."

I think Rowell (navigating officer of PoW, close to Leach on the bridge) was the best witness of Bismarck fire methodology. The others were unfortunately very generic and imprecise when saying "5 salvos". Here his full testimony (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... htm#Rowell).

Rowell_Bismarck_Firing.jpg (65.49 KiB) Viewed 1053 times

Please note the initial Vollsalve (at least if we interpret 4 turrets as a full salvo and not as 4 turrets bearings...) and the number of salvos, for sure much larger than 5 in total.
The third counted salvo would have been the center one of the Gabellgruppe (1 Vollsalve, 2 Gabellgruppe I, 3 Gabellgruppe II, 4 Gabellgruppe IV). We know that it was PG to hit Hood first, at least 1 minute later than the Gabelgruppe, but also the Baron reports that the Gabelgruppe was good already and that it straddled.

Then Rowell describes the maneuvers of BC1 and says Bismarck in the meantime continued to fire salvos (plural) short and over, with a "zig-zag ladder" methodology, implying a quite large number of salvos to notice such a methodology (at least 4 or 6).

I think my tentative "metronomic" reconstruction (40 shots and 36 actual shells, http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 540#p79941) is more or less in line with what we know, confirming Bismarck was NOT firing really continuously "rapid" (if not for 1 or 2 salvos only) and that she was spotting the fall of shells instead. That makes perfectly sense in case of such a quick rate closure of the two enemy divisions as it was at DS.



Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Note how Rowell doesn't state that Hood and PoW opened fire and then Bismarck did nothing for two minutes...

It's time we use the data and tell the real story, instead of a fantasy where the cowardly Lutjens freezes on the bridge. The very idea that PoW actually fired 4 or 5 salvos before Bismarck replied, and yet not one RN observer thought to comment on this is frankly impossible.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,


a good read of the Bismarck survivor Officer Burkard Freiherr ( Baron ) von Müllenheim-Rechberg descprition of that moment on board the Bismarck is highly recommended here :

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkard_F ... m-Rechberg

from his pretty famous book : " Battleship Bismarck, a survivor story "

https://books.google.it/books?id=SRhFAA ... ry&f=false


Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "Note how Rowell doesn't state that Hood and PoW opened fire and then Bismarck did nothing for two minutes.."

Posting Rowell account, I was 100% SURE that Mr.Dunmunro would have jumped in trying to resuscitate his favorite speculation.

Unfortunately for him, the German official reports (+ the Baron account) are clear enough.
In addition, as swpz already correctly pointed out, Bismarck RoF is already low enough while firing for 14 minutes 93 shells, ordering 104 to 112 shots). If we add other 2 minutes, we will never be able to build a reliable salvo chart...


Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

If we add other 2 minutes, we will never be able to build a reliable salvo chart...

"Weil, so schließt er messerscharf
Nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf."
(Christian Morgenstern)

"For, he reasons pointedly
That which must not, can not be."

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Marc,
of course you are welcome to show us all what you think "can be", when willing, IMO it can't be......


Bye, Alberto

[northcape]

Hello everybody,

now it is clear what Erminio Bagnasco did, he just translated the Baron Mullenheim Rechberg second edition book, written in English Language.

Here the caption in English from that book confirming both Bagnasco and my way to see the NH69731 photo, just as it is correctly captioned in English on the Baron MR second edition book :


MR_second_book_edition_NH69731_caption_English.jpg


Now it is clear from where Esmond Knight and the NHHC archives took their captions too …

As I was telling everybody since the beginning, ... no way out here : THE GAME IS OVER !

Closed story for this photo as well as for the other one, … and as Alberto underlined above, ... now it should be clear to everybody when the PG film started and the Prinz Eugen turned to starboard, ... at 06:03 and 30 seconds, ... with due tolerances, .. just as the PG map shows.

I am sure that many here in knew this photo caption, ... before I have searched and found it ...


Bye Antonio

I don't know what the translator did inhale, but in my german version (2nd edition, 1993) the figure caption to Fig. 28) unambigously states that the splash is from Bismarck:
"Bei Prince of Wales Geschossaufschlaege und nach rechts abziehende Qualmwolken" (Shell impacts close to POW and smoke drifting rightwards".

Having reported that, it is clear to me that figure captions in that context must not be used for historical judgements. I just want to set facts straight (fact being that the figure caption in the german=original book states that the splashes are from the german side). However, anyone with at least 10% brain remnants can clearly see that the splashes of course have to be from the german ships (splashes at the horizon line).

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

of course after the fair admission of Byron Angel that the splashes are from PoW as they are defined and well visible (no splash can be visible like that from 14 km distance.....), there is a much less fair hooligan here trying to still support the crazy theory that these are German splashes. He has probably "inhaled something" (or just drunk too much...), while the most reputed naval expert in Italy (E.Bagnasco) is clearly right, as any sane person.


Disregarding any caption, the splashes are at 1000-2000 meters max from the camera (I have several photos of splashes from 15" at that distance that prove that, while the splashes from 14 km are VERY difficult to see in a 1941 photo) and I doubt Germans were "fishing" while firing their guns at negative elevation.....

Also, the photo is clearly timed at 6:03:xx (see here http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 270#p80183) and shows the PoW salvo 19 shells falling short.


I wonder when this poorly educated hooligan/denier will finally decide to admit his errors.....instead of provoking the "milanesi" while being totally wrong (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... ese#p79977).


Bye, Alberto

[swpz]

Hi swpz,
your doubts are correct (and please don't even pay attention to a poor looser insinuations who, unable to counter arguments, started insulting and mocking, getting the well-deserved title of deniers at any cost A fair discussion is always accepted).

you wrote: " ...it doesn't fit the accounts of both Hood and PoW crew who were observing from the start."

I think Rowell (navigating officer of PoW, close to Leach on the bridge) was the best witness of Bismarck fire methodology. The others were unfortunately very generic and imprecise when saying "5 salvos". Here his full testimony (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... htm#Rowell).


Rowell_Bismarck_Firing.jpg


Please note the initial Vollsalve (at least if we interpret 4 turrets as a full salvo and not as 4 turrets bearings...) and the number of salvos, for sure much larger than 5 in total.
The third counted salvo would have been the center one of the Gabellgruppe (1 Vollsalve, 2 Gabellgruppe I, 3 Gabellgruppe II, 4 Gabellgruppe IV). We know that it was PG to hit Hood first, at least 1 minute later than the Gabelgruppe, but also the Baron reports that the Gabelgruppe was good already and that it straddled.

Then Rowell describes the maneuvers of BC1 and says Bismarck in the meantime continued to fire salvos (plural) short and over, with a "zig-zag ladder" methodology, implying a quite large number of salvos to notice such a methodology (at least 4 or 6).

I think my tentative "metronomic" reconstruction (40 shots and 36 actual shells, http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 540#p79941) is more or less in line with what we know, confirming Bismarck was NOT firing really continuously "rapid" (if not for 1 or 2 salvos only) and that she was spotting the fall of shells instead. That makes perfectly sense in case of such a quick rate closure of the two enemy divisions as it was at DS.



Bye, Alberto

Interesting.

So if we take Rowell's account, the order goes: Hood fires -> Price of Wales fires -> Bismarck returns fire

1) This first salvo is a full 8 gun salvo as he noted; so this corresponds to the first Vollsalve
2) The zig-zag corresponds to the Gabellgruppe firing and we know Bismarck fired at least 2+ of these before "Vollsalve" was ordered once a straddle was observed

So we have: 8+4+4+4 for 20 shots in 4 salvos.

After these 4 salvos there are 2 possible full salvos before Hood's destruction and fire shifted to Prince of Wales. However, this is the part when things start to fall apart as in Captain Leach's account; he notes that Hood was destroyed by a salvo with "2 over and 1 short or the other way around", so it was either an A+B or C+D salvo that destroyed Hood.

So we now have: 8+4+4+4+4+4 = 28 shots fired maximum based on observation.

Is it possible Lutjens was unaware of the actual number of shells fired but instead only aware of the number of shots ordered and that is what he reported accordingly acting on the best knowledge he had? The question then becomes at which point did Bismarck straddle and order full salvo fire? At ranging group 3 or 4? Most sources put this number at the 4th but if we move the straddle to the 3rd salvo prior to full salvo fire being ordered then the numbers make sense. British observers note a possible 15" hit on Bismarck's 3rd salvo which gives this idea a bit more credence. Of course then there's the PE hit to confuse things.

So we could have:

1) Vollsalve 8
2) Gabellgruppe 4
3) Gabellgruppe 4
4) Gabellgruppe 4/Vollsalve 8
5) Vollsalve 8
6) Vollsalve 8

36 or 40 ordered shots in this scenario with only a maximum of 28 actually fired.


---

Of course if Bismarck was this efficient with Hood, I'm not exactly sure why she only fired 53 shells at Prince of Wales in the next 10 minutes. Unless her output was actually staggeringly low due to some unknown complications/unrecorded procedures.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi swpz,

you wrote: "Is it possible Lutjens was unaware of the actual number of shells fired but instead only aware of the number of shots ordered and that is what he reported"

I don't think so as: 1) 93 is not a multiple of 4 and ordered shots should be while firing full or semi salvos; 2) assuming 93 ordered shots, the Rate of Fire of Bismarck would be extremely low, while with 104 to 112 it is just "decent" and in line with PoW.


Bye, Alberto

[swpz]

Hi swpz,

you wrote: "Is it possible Lutjens was unaware of the actual number of shells fired but instead only aware of the number of shots ordered and that is what he reported"

I don't think so as: 1) 93 is not a multiple of 4 and ordered shots should be while firing full or semi salvos; 2) assuming 93 ordered shots, the Rate of Fire of Bismarck would be extremely low, while with 104 to 112 it is just "decent" and in line with PoW.


Bye, Alberto

Then we're back to the problem where the British were all observing 4 gun salvos but the Germans had to have been firing full 8 gun salvos to meet the stated 40 rounds to sink the Hood claim.

All British accounts are also sure that Bismarck only fired 5 salvos before Hood's destruction so this is pretty concrete.

93 isn't a multiple of 4, but it is somewhat possible that near the closing stages of the battle, or sometime inbetween Bismarck suffered some sort of mechanical problem with her guns that delayed firing. Referencing to May 27 when D turret's right gun was destroyed by a shell exploding inside the barrel this is a possible theory - perhaps one of the guns acted up, and as Bismarck was out of immediate life threatening danger (still in a fight with heavy units but no longer outnumbered); they opted to slow down the rate of fire to ensure no accidents?

Under such a scenario it is possible that only one gun of a turret would be firing and that would explain the weird 93 shell number.