More on KGV Class main armament problems

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by alecsandros » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:10 pm

wadinga wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:47 pm
Fellow Contributors,

It has been said:
as the effective output of PoW in terms of shells delivered against the enemy per minute was better than Bismarck's one
Once again Mr Virtuani is at odds with Admiral Santini who he keeps quoting on PoW's performance, whilst apparently having a different idea of PoW's output. Which minutes did PoW match Bismarck's maximum and average output of 8 shells per minute? I presume the Weasel-word "effective" is supposed to allow for shells that would/could/might have been successfully fired if the turret had been bearing.

Alecsandros, welcome back, I hope you are feeling better.

All the best

wadinga
Hello,
I am not back, just dropping by.

Bismarck registered 93 shells/14 minutes = 6,64 shells per minute
Prince of Wales registered 55 shells / 9 minutes = 6,11 shells per minute

Comnpensating for available guns to fire (remember PoW was initially firing with 6 guns, not with all her main armament of 10 guns), one gets practically the same output between the two battleships.


====


The discussion is still centered on dry numbers. Numbers are very good, but number context is, IMHO, more important.
The best heavy weight boxer will not obtain victory if he has canon-balls tied to his anckles.

With this in mind, I must add that the context of the gunnery of Bismarck was different from the context of the gunnery of Prince of WAles.
Bismarck was firing from West to East, with all main artillery, against a faintly illuminated target (by the slowly rising sun), wind blowing her funnel smoke and gun smoke towards the enemy, and waves being produced and moved against the enemy by the wind.
Also of note is that the German battleship was doing little to no (?) course alterations - in any case no noticeable course alterations.

Prince of WAles on the other hand was firing from East to West, with 60% of main artillery (for the first 8 salvos), and with 100% of artillery (for the subsequent 10). She was firing against a poorly illuminated target (by the slowly rising sun), wind blowing own gun and funnely smoke further back. But the same wind was blowing sea water over the forecastle, bringing water inside the forward turrets , putting the gunners awash inside. The same wind was obscuring visibility through the optical instruments.
Also of note is that PoW performed 3 course alterations , of which 2 during the actual battle, plus a final "U turn", practically having little time on a steady gunnery course. Course changes naturally afected the firing solution, and possibly increased likelihood of shell jams inside the heavy battleship.

This is best understood, IMHO, when observing the conditions of the second battle, at 18:00: Prince of wAles was on a steady course, firing against the enemy battleship (which was well illuminated by the sunset), with little to no wind affecting the firings: in that engagement, executed from ~ 27-28km or so, Prince of Wales outputted 85% of ordered shots.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:29 pm

Hello everybody,
"Which minutes did PoW match Bismarck's maximum and average output of 8 shells per minute? "
I have written "effective output in terms of shells delivered per minute", I forgot to add "average".... Of course only average values are meaningful but, in case, we can go to a further detail trying to reconstruct each salvo fired, once Mr.Wadinga will finally have his own recostruction of the battle, that will allow this kind of simulation. Antonio and I have it and it will be published.
PoW delivered 11 shells (failures only in Y2 (2 lost shots), A1 (1) and Y3 (1)) during minute 6:00 when by chance she fired 3 salvos: so what ? Peak values (or strict minute by minute values) are obviously totally irrelevant here.
PoW delivered 32 shells from 5:58 to 6:01 included (4 minutes, 8 shells/min), but, again, in a 9 minutes action this is not so meaningful (I'm using the PoW salvo table originally created by Mr.Dunmunro and later modified to cope with Barben's report...)

The Weasel-word "effective" is a concept present in the PoW GAR (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm) , that I have recommended to read and digest more than once. I have patiently explained how to calculate these values, at length. If not understood, protest with McMullen. Sorry.



Alecsandros wrote: "Bismarck registered 93 shells/14 minutes = 6,64 shells per minute. Prince of Wales registered 55 shells / 9 minutes = 6,11 shells per minute. Comnpensating for available guns to fire...one gets practically the same output between the two battleships."
Hi Alec,
while I totally agree about the different "battle conditions" that affected the gunnery,
actually, once compensated, we get even a better effective output for PoW vs BS (of course poW had 2 guns more...).
PoW delivered 7 shells/min vs 6.4 shells/min of Bismarck, if calculated employing McMullen methodology as per PoW GAR (both average values over the whole battle, of course). This methodology compensates for the initial PoW 8 salvos when Y turret was not bearing.
PoW delivered 7.4 shells/min and BS 6.6 shells/min if roughly calculated compensating for Y turret not bearing, but not using McMullen's more precise method that excludes the first salvo (download/file.php?id=3463).

I have tried to explain the 2 methods here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&hilit=crude+ap ... 285#p82594), but apparently I was unable to...


Bye, Alberto



P.S. @Bill Jurens: is Weasel-word a nice expression ? I don't think so.
Anyway, speaking with non-native language people, Mr.Wadinga should be asked to use plain language, not his rhetorical expressions, possibly funny for British, irritating for others.
"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)

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by alecsandros » Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:47 pm

Thanks Alberto,
You're obviously right.

Best,

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:07 pm

I would say that Dunmurno's suggested algorithms are essentially correct, at least in principle. If one halves the target area and halves the number of projectiles fired, one might reasonably expect the number of hits to be reduced by the product of these figures, i.e. 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25.

In terms of percentage of hits, the situation changes. Halving the number of shells fired should, within reason, not affect the percentage of hits.
Halving the target area should result in halving the percentage of hits.

Ranges and times of flight in most naval actions mean that the distribution of individual points of impact is essentially random, so no meaningful comparisons can be made unless the number of hits obtained is very high indeed, probably something well over twenty. From that, one can extract mean point of impact, a rough measure of fire control, and impact distribution, which measures a combination of fire control efficiency (keeping in mind that each salvo is individually aimed) and issues revolving around gun alignment and performance, etc.

As before, meaningful information requires a fairly large sample size. The error is very high if the sample size is very small, and in this case the sample size is very small indeed. Drawing any firm conclusions from this sort of sample remains very risky indeed, and probably effectively meaningless regarding the true relative gunnery capability of the ships involved. It’s a bit like trying to determine which of two bowlers is better by taking two randomly selected rolls from a three-game series. In such a situation, one will usually see SOME difference in outcome, but whether this is in any realistic sense indicative of overall performance and capability is very problematical indeed. And that’s really the situation we have at Denmark Strait.

Even using the relationships described above, one would have to have quite a large number of shots fired in order to see any significant difference in overall outcome.

Bill Jurens

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Byron Angel » Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:37 pm

Question - Why is 0602 deemed the official "cease fire" time of Prince of Wales for purposes of calculating "output"?

B

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:36 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Hi Alecsandros:
"Bismarck registered 93 shells/14 minutes = 6,64 shells per minute.
Using your phraseology, you're obviously wrong. IMHO
Even Santarini says Bismarck delivered 8 shells per minute.
There is no likelihood Bismarck fired at the same rate throughout. Somebody once called Alecsandros wisely and repeatedly pointed this inconvenience out some time ago, but he seems to have disappeared. Maybe he has been averaged into compliance.

Average values are obviously meaningless, especially when they are massaged to produce a required result. There is no validity in the shells over minutes equation. A ship which has a well-trained, well practised crew and effectively-performing loading and firing systems can increase the output per minute considerably and nearly instantaneously, when they have the optimum firing solution. Like Bismarck did. Because the Baron heard the instruction to do so.

Poorly trained, inexperienced crews with unreliable equipment, like PoW, as identified and documented by the most senior gunnery and ordnance officers in the RN, can barely exceed their average performance even when they straddle. We have already noted the "magic/mad minute of 06:00, all the other minutes were far less effective.
Peak values (or strict minute by minute values) are obviously totally irrelevant here.
Exactly the opposite is true. PoW achieved a peak, independent of a good firing solution, since the salvoes fired in it missed both over and short and missing for line too. NB the over salvo 14 was fired at 16,300 yds when the "spotted" straddle salvo 13 fired only 40 seconds earlier was at 16,450. One could speculate why, an intense emotion overcoming logic seems likely, given salvo 15 was fired only 20 seconds later at 15,100yds 1,200 yds less than salvo 14. PoW clearly had no successful firing solution despite this anomalous increase in performance. (Actually just shell wastage.)

This increase in performance was short-lived, by minute 06:01 it had disappeared again.

Weasel words is an entertaining and really nice way of saying "intentionally ambiguous or misleading", as "compensated/compensates" is used where a fudge factor (see what I did there) is introduced to change real values into something else.

Once again Mr Gollin makes a very percipient point. What does guns ordered to fire actually mean?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Byron Angel » Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:19 am

Bismarck clearly should have ceased fire at 0602 in order to preserve its statistical output score. Someone clearly dropped the ball here.

B

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by dunmunro » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:07 am

Byron Angel wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:37 pm
Question - Why is 0602 deemed the official "cease fire" time of Prince of Wales for purposes of calculating "output"?

B
It seems as though certain parties want to pursue a buy low (Bismarck's RoF over 14 minutes) and sell high (PoW's RoF over 9 minutes) policy despite the fact that PoW's log states: " 0611. Ceased fire 14" ", and we know that she fired further salvos after 0602.

In fact no one knows when Bismarck ceased fire or how many salvos she fired and when. We can look at different scenarios for her RoF and my best estimate is that her RoF was highest prior to ~0602 and then tapered off considerably.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by alecsandros » Wed Jun 26, 2019 4:18 am

@Wadinga
You need to consider context before analysing the results.

This is hard and takes time, while not offering final conclusions.

However, for a clearere historical perspective, cntext is mandatory to be considered.

I remember reading somewhere , some time ago, a phrase which sounded like 'context is king', or something like that. It reffered to the fact that a given person in two different contexts (broadly speaking) can and does, most of the time, behave and work completely differently, obtaining a completely different KPI score.

My intuition is that the same can be said about big ships.

Best,

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:31 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "I would say that Dunmurno's suggested algorithms are essentially correct, at least in principle."
The calculation may be essentilly correct (mathematically), the assumption (halving # of shells) was totally wrong, thus conclusions are wrong.
The fact Mr.Dunmunro was unable to answer, clarifying what was his "2/3 adjustment" (?) confirms he had no answer at all and that he just made a trivial mistake, without acknowledging it.


Byron Angel wrote: "Why is 0602 deemed the official "cease fire" time of Prince of Wales for purposes of calculating "output"?....Bismarck clearly should have ceased fire at 0602 in order to preserve its statistical output score"
Because her GAR (correctly) established 06:02 to have been the end of the coordinated fire action of the ship, disregarding the random local salvos fired at 06:03-06:04, following the emergency turn away ordered by her Captain. Protests with McMullen if in disagreement, please.

If we cut Bismarck firing at 06:02, than we cut the film sequence (from 06:04, when the ship fires at quite high RoF) and the following photos (taken after 6:06): in total 11 salvos. Sorry, there is no way to change figures, despite th urgency to deny the good RoF of PoW....


Wadinga wrote: "Using your phraseology, you're obviously wrong. IMHO"
the key word here is "IMHO" but "only IMHO" would be more correct, missing any explanation.

Average (9 minutes PoW) or peak (from 05:58 till 06:01) values point to an "excellent" RoF for PoW both actual and effective (download/file.php?id=3463 and viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&p=84139#p84126). Sorry.



Everyone here seem to forget that, in order to estimate and to compare specific time interval RoFs of the involved ships, they need to have a battle reconstruction: nobody has a credible one, except Antonio....



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)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Byron Angel » Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:36 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:31 am
Byron Angel wrote: "Why is 0602 deemed the official "cease fire" time of Prince of Wales for purposes of calculating "output"?....Bismarck clearly should have ceased fire at 0602 in order to preserve its statistical output score"
Because her GAR (correctly) established 06:02 to have been the end of the coordinated fire action of the ship, disregarding the random local salvos fired at 06:03-06:04, following the emergency turn away ordered by her Captain. Protests with McMullen if in disagreement, please."
Questions -
> Why does McMullen's decision to restrict his statistical analysis to an arbitrarily limited time span have any influence over an ex post facto historical analysis of the battle? Did the battle end at 0602?

> Why is the firing of Y turret (or lack thereof) after the turn-away disregarded in calculation of PoW's "output"?

> If it is not considered apropos to take account of PoW's "output" after 0602 because of her evasive turn-away maneuvers, etc., why is the period after 0602 during which Bismarck conducted evasive anti-torpedo maneuvers included?


B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:13 pm

Answers:

1) the coordinated fire action for PoW (from which it makes sense to extract statistics) ends at 06:02. As said, any complaints about arbitrariness should be adressed to McMullen, not to me.
In any case I had already demonstrated (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&hilit=local_in ... 225#p82510) that even adding the local salvos (compensating for A + B not bearing) nothing change so significantly...

2) local firing is not a "coordinated fire action" is an emergency workaround due to leach decision to withdraw.

3) BS central fire control lasted until the end of action and no appreciable interval in her firing was reported (as well as for PG)

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:21 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)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1863
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:17 pm

Fellow Contributors,

It has been said
than we cut the film sequence (from 06:04, when the ship fires at quite high RoF) and the following photos (taken after 6:06):
there is no evidence for this timing, it is merely a speculation at odds with eye witnesses who say at least the photos were taken much earlier.

Since there is no evidence of Bismarck's firing procedure:
to have been the end of the coordinated fire action of the ship
is quite likely to have occurred in Bismarck well before 06:09, for precisely the same reasons, violent manoeuvring, in that Bismarck was supposed to be avoiding imaginary torpedoes. In both vessels the Cease Fire order may not represent the end of "co-ordinated fire action". There is photographic evidence that a salvo was fired by Bismarck in the same direction as the POV from PG but when this occurred is a matter for conjecture.

If
point to an "excellent" RoF for PoW both actual and effective
were true, why would the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty write a handwritten memo enquiring what was being done about the problems? And why would the Head of the Ordnance section say they were being addressed?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:28 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "there is no evidence for this timing"
Yes, there is here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82759&hilit=railings#p82759 if not fond of "indeterminateness" that is a good excuse not to have to counter the evidences.

"is quite likely to have occurred in Bismarck well before 06:09"
Speculation. PG continued firing despite more maneuvers. Why should Bismarck do differently ? In which intervals ?
Of course a reconstruction is needed to answer this question: if someone has none, no discussion is possible.


The RoF numbers are calculated (both for peak selected intervals viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&p=84139#p84126 and for whole battle average download/file.php?id=3463). If annoying, I can't do anything.


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)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Byron Angel » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:30 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:13 pm
Answers:

1) the coordinated fire action for PoW (from which it makes sense to extract statistics) ends at 06:02. As said, any complaints about arbitrariness should be adressed to McMullen, not to me.
In any case I had already demonstrated (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&hilit=local_in ... 225#p82510) that even adding the local salvos (compensating for A + B not bearing) nothing change so significantly...

2) local firing is not a "coordinated fire action" is an emergency workaround due to leach decision to withdraw.

3) BS central fire control lasted until the end of action and no appreciable interval in her firing was reported (as well as for PG)

Bye, Alberto
- - -

To be polite, I find the above response rather evasive and arbitrary.

[ 1 ] What McMullen decided to frame his presentation has absolutely nothing whatever to do with any present day decision about approaching a battle analysis, unless of course an argument is being maintained that the battle officially ended at 0602.

[ 2 ] Firing is firing in a battle. Method of control is immaterial

[ 3 ] If I am understanding the above argument, the fact that PoW was pummeled and forced to turn away under duress actually serves as a virtue in terms of "ouput" analysis. Curious logic.

B

Post Reply