Bismarck firing procedures at DS

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

thanks for your prompt answer and mostly for your fairness.

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 424#p80408

I would agree both on your personal analysis as well as on Alecsandros subsequent properly provided evidence we have from the official reports regarding PoW disengagement time ( Capt Leach report ) and her Y Turret jamming ( PoW gunnery report ).

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 705#p80411

Regarding the Norfolk and Suffolk distance from the enemy between 05:30 and 06:30 it is enough to read Capt Ellis own autobiography and evaluate the officially communicated bearings we have available today ( ref. my Norfolk map dedicated thread ), ... together with the German radar inputs ( Busch ), ... summarized by the Baron von Mullenheim Rechberg on his book ( they where between the 12 and 15 sea miles ) and the scenario is exactly the one you summarized, ... and I agree with you on the overall situation you described.

In fairness as you did, ... the answers could not have been anything different than two : NO

The above reasoning and fair evaluation basically confirms all I am stating since May 2013 when I have started this discussion about Adm Tovey points 17 ( Norfolk and Suffolk distance ) and 19 ( PoW retreat time and Y turret jamming ) on his dispatches.

It is enough now to associate to this the May 31st, 1941 letter from Tovey to Pound ( Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial ), ... the Stephen Roskill book notes ( confirmation of the event ), ... Sir Barnes Admiralty letter( acceptance only of Adm Tovey wrong version into the his dispatches ), ... and finally the ADM 205/10 4 pages ( political closure ), ... and the scenario is clear in the official documents available.

As you can see no " new theory " is needed by anybody but just an easy historian research into the official documents, ... Stephen Roskill, Corelli Barnett and lately Graham Rhys-Jones already disclosed this event, ... just avoiding to describe in details how it was managed into the Admiralty and at political level, ... only Stephen Roskill had the courage to explain that the solution was into the ADM 205/10 pages.

What I have done, starting from May 2013 and not knowing the existence of the ADM 205/10 pages was to reconstruct all this bottom up, ... from the documents intentional alteration to the reasons for someone to have done it that way.

Now all is clear and available for everybody, ... and I hope that your two : NO ... will finally quit the useless refusal to admit the truth and what everybody should be able to easily realize now given what we have available as evidence.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "You are attempting to derive 38cm RoF when you do no have precise open fire and ceasefire times "

...based on the only possible open fire and cease fire (approximate) timings as recorded from German side and reported by all accounts.

If Mr.Dunmunro wants to speculate about a possible (unproven) error in PG KTB, he is free to present his own open fire and cease fire timings. He already theorized 5:53 as open fire time (at least he had for it some witnesses) and got a worse result for Bismarck RoF in comparison to PoW.....
Now he can try with a cease fire timing different from 6:09.... good luck presenting his reconstruction, supported by evidence.

For the time being, 14 minutes is the logical duration of the battle for both German ships, as per any reconstruction.

The "annoying table" is still here, I however agree with Mr.Jurens comment about the useless of so many decimal digits in an (anyway) approximate calculation, but this was done to allow an easy comparison of the "effective" values given different ordered shots figure (changing the 108, the impact is, as logical, minimum and affecting the decimal digits only).
The key figure is 93 fired shells and this alone is enough to demonstrate that PoW effective RoF and # fired shells/minute was in line with Bismarck one (with all due approximations).

Here anyway the rounded values in the "very annoying table": now try to provide a different assumption instead of the 108 and verify that the "effective" values are almost unchanged, if you are able ! Stop the indecent blah-blah to avoid to admit that the calculations are correct (as per McMullen methodology) and that the table just confirms what Adm.Santarini has explained at length in his book: the fairy-tale of the PoW poor gunnery to justify Leach turn away is OVER.

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen_rounded.jpg (56.43 KiB) Viewed 690 times

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

@Alberto

Rightfully you have to include salvo 19-21, too.

@Alecsandros

I don't think there is enough evidence -- at least from my files -- to determine exactly when Y turret jammed

From Prince of Wales gunnery aspect report: "Turret Y: Salvo 20 - Owing to the motion of the ship, a shell slid out of the port shell room and fouled the revolving shell ring while the latter was locked to the trunk and the turret was training. The hinge tray was severely buckled, putting the revolving shell ring out of action. The tray was removed, but on testing the ring it was found that No. 3 and 4 hinge trays of the starboard shell room had also been buckled and were fouling the ring. The cause of this is not yet known. The trays were removed and as the action had stopped by this time, No. 4 tray was dressed up and replaced. The ring was out of action until 0825."

The salvo chart of PoW is well known , and clearly indicates that "salvo 20" had been fired after PoW disengaged from the battle.

I'm wondering how a shell can slide out of the port shell room during a turn to starboard.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Herr Nilsson wrote: "Rightfully you have to include salvo 19-21, too."

Mr.Nilsson should address his comment to McMullen, who (correctly) has not......


Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

That means you're comparing apples and oranges on purpose.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

No, this means I'm comparing PoW, Bismarck and PG centrally directed gunnery, as done by McMullen for PoW and as any sane person would do.
If McMullen decided not to include the local control shots, he was certainly more competent than a... Nilsson.....


In case Mr.Nilsson has evidence that Bismarck fired in local control at a stage of the battle....he is welcome to present his speculation to make us laugh.


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

The easy to understand point Herr Nilsson is attempting to educate you over is clear. McMullen records the period during which PoW fired as fast as she could given the extensive problems with her gunnery installation. Even when hitting, she never managed to improve on this rate. McMullen's table information stops when PoW ceases to fire at her maximum achievable rate, because she is turning hard, and there would be no point in firing. He notes some rounds were fired subsequently. McMullen notes when the Cease Fire was given.


The fabricated figures you have created for Bismarck have none of this sophistication. The sample resolution is 840 times worse than PoW's. Your latest modification in terms of places of decimals is like putting lipstick on a pig. It's still not any prettier. It's still just a pig. Because there is only one real figure, 93 and even the duration you have used has no provenance, your figures remain meaningless. We know Bismarck fired far faster than your average rate, because we have film. Even you accept this. This obviously represents her highest achievable rate when on target. The idea that you fire faster when you don't have a good FC solution is just daft, since it is contradicted in every source on gunnery practice. Since the known number of shells would be expended in a very short time period, at this rate, it is clear that she did not fire at this rate for any length of time. Like PoW there was very likely a time when the period between salvoes extended to a point where she had effectively stopped shooting. However, like PoW the Cease Fire order had not been given at that point.


Whereas there is an extensive and detailed body of information on faults and failures in PoW's gunnery system there is none in Bismarck's other than a reference to a single misfire and that the Baron mentions no gunnery problems at all despite his specialism.


So in this pointless Top Trumps exercise Herr Nilsson is perfectly correct. Even were one to accept that Cease Fire time in PG has something in common with cease fire time in Bismarck, the only fair comparison would be with a duration to Cease Fire time in PoW. It is irrelevant that the last shots from PoW were fired in local control. McMullen excluded them from his analysis because they were fired after a period when firing temporarily ceased due to the rapid turn, and therefore PoW was not firing at her maximum achievable rate. We know that despite the similar sophistication of PG's fire control system to that of Bismarck, she stopped shooting because of extreme turns (see PG KTB).


For the next appearance of you porcine make-up show,

He would never support Wadinga's ignorant claim that both 108 and 27 are different assumptions.

I have never claimed they are different assumptions, they are clearly the same assumption dividing an assumption by four is no different to dividing it by one. The product of either process is still an assumption.


All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

as anybody can see above, the resilient Wadinga is back trying to insinuate that the calculated RoF for Bismack is not proven.

Unfortunately for him, it is. 93 shells fired is the only parameters affecting in a significant way the "effective" values and this figure alone is enough to demonstrate that PoW effective RoF and # fired shells/minute was in line with Bismarck one.

Mr.Wadinga hate for the "annoying table" ("pig") is the best proof of his IMPOTENCE to counter the average effective figures.

The interval of 14 minutes is comparable to the 8,58 minutes of PoW, as Bismarck never ceased fire (except in this guy's madness as no evidence has been presented supporting his speculation) and we have the film taken after 6:03:30 (he has tried to speculate about this timing too, without presenting any evidence for another timing) showing a quite fast RoF. These are the average values: if Mr.Wadinga is unhappy with them, his problem.


Speaking of assumptions, I'm still waiting for Mr:Wadinga assumption about Bismarck ordered shots instead of 108, to laugh at him, but as we all know he has severe problems with mathematics, here again Adm.Santarini judgement, in plain English language: I suggest him to read carefully and digest the explanation why the hooligans refuse to recognize PoW performances.

Santarini_pag.54_Bismarck_Performance.jpg (45.83 KiB) Viewed 627 times

Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "McMullen excluded them from his analysis because they were fired after a period when firing temporarily ceased due to the rapid turn"

Of course he did. That's why including them would have been (and still is) totally WRONG. Bismarck never ceased fire (at least if Mr.Wadinga cannot find an evidence.... )

Wadinga wrote another fake: " she (PG) stopped shooting because of extreme turns (see PG KTB)"

Post the evidence (I'm tired of doing the work for these lazy guys). Be careful: I read exactly the opposite in PG KTB.



Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Bismarck never ceased fire

How do you know that? What is the difference between slowing down your rate of fire because it would be pointless wasting shells as you are heeling and turning and so is your enemy and temporarily "ceasing fire".


Regarding that part of Santarini's book, well done in finding nearly a whole page, well half a page, in which he does not mention the numerous breakdowns and failures of PoW's guns. Unfortunately the only page in which he bizarrely says PoW's rate of fire was good, often at less than one round per gun per minute, also includes those details, so you have avoided it.

Even as late as the end of the War and certainly through to the award of the medals it was widely believed outside PoW that Hood scored the damaging hits on Bismarck . Certainly the British Admiralty were wrong in believing Bismarck possessed extraordinary war capabilities, as her incompetent performance on the 27th showed, when the wonderful FC systems with automatic Seetakt input, interchangeable computers, and gyro stabilisation and RPC to the gun mounts and all the other technical innovations were incapable of dealing with her wallowing and uncontrollable turning, and she hit absolutely nothing. (Sorry Alecsandros a few paint scratches don't count, and Rodney did more damage to herself than Bismarck did throughout the 26th/27th to the British Fleet.)


ADM267/167 available on this very site shows that even after Bismarck's bedraggled survivors were brought aboard and questioned, everybody was confident that it was Hood that had mission-killed Bismarck with her last few shots.


Since it was Hood only that was considered to have hit Bismarck, (and that is the only fairy story in the British accounts of the Bismarck Chase) Tovey was still arguing it was probably PoW in letters from New Zealand in 1946, Santarini's speculative opinion is uninformed and incorrect. There was no attempt to play down PoW's successes, because nobody at the time thought she had made any. Santarini would not have made such obvious gaffes, if he had done a little more thorough historical research for his book, instead of disappearing off to play with his computer and generate reams and reams of irrelevant statistical over-complications, based on what I believe even Mr Jurens considers as inadequate base data.

From the PG KTB:

The battery was twice laterally and temporarily displaced from the target during this evolution. Page 40.

That means the wonderful gyros and RPC and follow the pointer and all the other techno-gubbins couldn't actually keep the target in the sights and the guns on target because they were heeling too much and turning too fast.


All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga insists in his fake : "he (PG) stopped shooting because of extreme turns (see PG KTB)" and later: "The battery was twice laterally and temporarily displaced from the target during this evolution. Page 40. "

Mr.Wadinga confuses the problems of the FC in keeping the battery continuously on target (for both line and range) with a shooting stop..... or he is so arrogant to be unable to admit he cannot read a simple statement like Jasper one IN ITS FULL LENGTH:

Jasper_Turns(KTB).jpg (29.26 KiB) Viewed 593 times

As said, I'm tired to have to do the work for him.....

PG never stopped shooting, as well as Bismarck (at least until Mr.Wadinga finds an evidence supporting his fantasy as I have not seen any account stating such an enormity. Note that PG was in a worse geometrical position to fire at PoW (arcs were less opened), if PG did not stop firing, I see NO logical reason at all why Bismarck should have done it)...


It's anyway really funny to look at all these deniers trying to find any possible way out from the corner they are in by now.



Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Mr.Wadinga confuses the problems of the FC in keeping the battery continuously on target (for both line and range) with a shooting stop

Yes of course they kept emptying the shells out through the barrels, even though the guns weren't even aimed at the target any more, I mean you don't want all that ammunition laying about cluttering the place up ...………………


It doesn't say in Jasper's report they stopped firing A and B turrets when they weren't pointing at the enemy either. Have you included their firing in your spreadsheet?

He says they did keep firing in principle during turns- then he immediately corrects that statement by saying they stopped twice because they couldn't hold the target any more due to the violent manoeuvring, just like PoW.


There's a pefectly logical reason

finds an evidence supporting his fantasy as I have not seen any account stating such an enormity for Bismarck,

so as to only use 93 shells in total of course, when she has been blazing away so rapidly at Hood earlier as seen by Lagemann!


I'll give you a little longer to cook up some excuses for Santarini.


BTW this thread is supposed to be about Bismarck.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

the fantasy of this denier is unlimited, he would like to invent his own PG KTB but my patience is OVER.

Wadinga wrote: "He says they did keep firing in principle during turns- then he immediately corrects that statement by saying they stopped twice because they couldn't hold the target any more"

FALSE and proven false by PG KTB. In NO place it's written they stopped firing, even during turns.It's exactly the opposite, it's specified that during turns they continued firing despite the FC solution disruption. Mr.Wadinga is really TROLLING this forum in a disgusting way (or drinking too much), not accepting what is WRITTEN by Jasper, proposing arrogantly his lies as facts supported only by his... blah-blah (see above).
Please use your glasses and read (it's your language apparently) ! I'm tired of loosing time posting evidence to hear back this troll's nonsense:

Jasper_Turns(KTB).jpg (29.26 KiB) Viewed 550 times

Wadinga wrote: "It doesn't say in Jasper's report they stopped firing A and B turrets when they weren't pointing at the enemy either. Have you included their firing in your spreadsheet? "

Of course it says so and I have kept into acount this fact in my salvo plot, had Mr.Wadinga had the knowledge to understand it....



NO EVIDENCE Bismarck stopped shooting at ANY time during the battle: game is over because this troll is NAKED without any evidence. Full stop.



Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

game is over because this troll is NAKED without any evidence. Full stop.

IN that case game was over 3 years ago Alberto !
Nobody learned anything.
The only GOOD thing is that you and Antonio exchanged ideas and hopefully will be able to publish them with time, based (in part ) on the discussions presented here.

I sincerely wish that both of you stop feeding people with free information (free is cheapest ! and cheapest isn't respected in our times). For whoever wants a discussion, there are the private messages, facebook, google mail, yahoo mail and so on.

[Herr Nilsson]

NO EVIDENCE Bismarck stopped shooting at ANY time during the battle: game is over because this troll is NAKED without any evidence. Full stop.

And what is the evidence that Bismarck did not stop. What about the orders „Abwarten!“ and „Halt!“.