Since you seem to have overlooked this post, I'm repeating it:
Bgile wrote:At what point on your chart does Bismarck interpose between PG and PoW, resulting in the order not to fire over the flagship?
Moderator: Bill Jurens
Bgile wrote:At what point on your chart does Bismarck interpose between PG and PoW, resulting in the order not to fire over the flagship?
Sorry about that - some nasty accusations flying about which distracted me.Bgile wrote:Vic,
Since you seem to have overlooked this post, I'm repeating it:
Bgile wrote:At what point on your chart does Bismarck interpose between PG and PoW, resulting in the order not to fire over the flagship?
When I served in submarines it was customary for the duty QM to keep a nav plot showing own ship's course and speed. If we were in a "combat" situation we would have a fire control tracking party keeping a plot showing own ship's track but additionally showing target tracks. There is value in doing that for tactical purposes, but you don't want it messing up the QM's nav plot. So yes, there is value in a separate plot.Vic Dale wrote:
What could possibly be the point of the table producing own ship's track when that is already plotted in the ship's chart house?
Vic Dale
Hi Vic ~ I'm not quite sure if it is helpful for this discussion but there are a few things on your chart that need some clarification. There is something wrong with the English translations of the German wording.Vic Dale wrote:Below I have produced a most rudimentary presentation to illustrate how Bismarck may have come across the range at 0620 and from this it is possible to see separation reducing back to about 3000m. I have no way of verifying that this happened at present, but it does seem a likely explanation, or something fairly close.Vic Dale
There is no source for the turn toward other than the obvious indication on the Salvo Plot. Bismarck could not have steered any other course. This is presented by the manner in which target bearing became fixed at 330 deg. in PoW after the first straddle. The fact that all shot fell correct for line accurately marks Bismarck's position by the minute along the course of 192 degrees, having regard for time of flight and lastly she makes the 1st and 2nd straddles on that line.Bgile wrote:When I served in submarines it was customary for the duty QM to keep a nav plot showing own ship's course and speed. If we were in a "combat" situation we would have a fire control tracking party keeping a plot showing own ship's track but additionally showing target tracks. There is value in doing that for tactical purposes, but you don't want it messing up the QM's nav plot. So yes, there is value in a separate plot.Vic Dale wrote:
What could possibly be the point of the table producing own ship's track when that is already plotted in the ship's chart house?
Vic Dale
Why in the world would Bismarck help Holland by turning toward him? Do we have any source documenting this initial turn by Bismarck?
This appears to be a range plot from a Dreyer table. You still haven't address the issue of PoW's Gunnery Aspects Report stating that the forward DCT was wooded after salvo 18.Vic Dale wrote: ?
Below is a typical range plot printout produced by a gunnery table.
Vic Dale
My sincere apologies for that. The image I had was an isolated picture mixed with recovered material from an old failed hard disk and there was no indication of it's source, so I had no idea who produced it or where it came from.Bill Jurens wrote:Mr. Dale:
Other issues aside, the least you could do would be to acknowledge the actual source of the "Sample Range Plot" which you appended to this thread earlier, and ask for permission to reproduce (as did the Hood site where you probably found it.) In fact, it's "copyright (c) W. Jurens/International Naval Research Organization 2001." The illustration is actually taken from an article by the late William Schliehauf, "The Dumaresque and the Dreyer", which I edited and helped to illustrate. It's good -- though by no means required -- reading, provided material isn't taken out of context. Mr. Schleihauf really knew his stuff, and I am currently in the process of helping to prepare his last paper, also on gunnery, for posthumous publication.
Bill Jurens
dunmunro wrote:This appears to be a range plot from a Dreyer table. You still haven't address the issue of PoW's Gunnery Aspects Report stating that the forward DCT was wooded after salvo 18.Vic Dale wrote: ?
Below is a typical range plot printout produced by a gunnery table.
Vic Dale
Vic, you have PoW running roughly parallel to Bismarck for ~3 minutes after salvo 18, and despite the fact that PoW has 3 functioning main battery turrets, and 2 functioning DCTs, she doesn't fire at shot! C'mon, this is a complete departure from reality. If this had really occurred then there would have been some very pointed questions asked and probably a few court martials. PoW was turning hard, and after salvo 18 this wooded the director and the forward turrets, any other explanation implies that Leach falsified his report.Vic Dale wrote:
Well the statement also begs the question "When after salvo 18?"