http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-016.htm
About this article: Destruction of the Bismarck
Moderator: Bill Jurens
About this article: Destruction of the Bismarck
I just want you to tell your opinion about this article about Bismarck final battle. I already have one but I need time to do a good criticism.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-016.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-016.htm
"Wir kämpfen bis zur letzten Granate."
Günther Lütjens
Günther Lütjens
Indeed, but I were just curious to know if someone knows about those schemes of the Bismarck hull damages.
Just because once I saw something similar and I don't remember any rilevant hull damage that could justify 10.000 tons of water in her compartments.
May be I am mistaken, but I am also quite sure that one of her turrets were lost due to an anticipated explosion and not by the enemy fire.
And anyway I am quite doubtful about the adjective "chirurgical" used about british fire.In mean, I don't think KG V and Rodney were aiming to hit the main turrets, the rangefinders, the directions, but simply to the ship herself.
As for the hit given by Duke of York to Scharnhorst radar dicember 26th 1943, you cannot speak of "chirurgical fire guided by radar".This is, after all, a lucky hit, and the same it's true for Bismarck's one on Hood at the Denmarck Strait.
You're right, id didn't tell nothing new, but I don't like this article at all.
Just because once I saw something similar and I don't remember any rilevant hull damage that could justify 10.000 tons of water in her compartments.
May be I am mistaken, but I am also quite sure that one of her turrets were lost due to an anticipated explosion and not by the enemy fire.
And anyway I am quite doubtful about the adjective "chirurgical" used about british fire.In mean, I don't think KG V and Rodney were aiming to hit the main turrets, the rangefinders, the directions, but simply to the ship herself.
As for the hit given by Duke of York to Scharnhorst radar dicember 26th 1943, you cannot speak of "chirurgical fire guided by radar".This is, after all, a lucky hit, and the same it's true for Bismarck's one on Hood at the Denmarck Strait.
You're right, id didn't tell nothing new, but I don't like this article at all.
"Wir kämpfen bis zur letzten Granate."
Günther Lütjens
Günther Lütjens
I read the article again, and I don't agree that at 0950 (ten minutes before the scuttling order) the Bismarck had at least 10,000 tons of floodwater on board and was foundering. Bismarck started the last battle with a couple thousands tons of water from the hits of 24 May and the Swordfish torpedoes but not 10,000 tons. British shells during last battle didn't cause much flooding at all because there are only 2 penetrations of main belt.
Or four, if you pay attention to the british expedition of 2001.But the following expedition, Cameron's one, demonstrated those shell penetrations weren't responsible of any apparent heavy damage, so...at least, I don't think they even damaged the lower armoured deck.
Yes, being an "old" article contains some...let's say imprecision.
Yes, being an "old" article contains some...let's say imprecision.
"Wir kämpfen bis zur letzten Granate."
Günther Lütjens
Günther Lütjens
-
Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Article
Ciao Matthias, Javier and all,
so here we are now discussing the last battle, good
This is what I am currently collecting all the material for future works, so it is for me a good source of information.
Before moving into the hits penetration of Bismarck hull and relative analysis, I would like you to focus on one set of data I found of particular interest on that article since I saw it time ago.
Did you noticed the shells expenditure of Rodney and KG V ?
Did you notice the KG V shell expenditure differences among all guns and in particular between turret A ( quadruple ) and B ( twin ) ?
If one do analyze Duke of York data on December 26th against Scharnhorst the situation will look a bit better, but still awful for a battleship fully trained, ... that is why HMS Vanguard after was equipped with 4 twin turrets as Royal Navy got read of those 'problematic' quadruple design.
Now the statement I have copied above should have been written this way according to me :
1) Forward turrets could have fired 40 salvoes or more but only A turret was close to the maximum output although one gun missed 4 shells.
B turret know problems caused an evident lost of output ( 109 out of 140 ) and due to the B turret utilization impossibility that rested 30 minutes forced the ship to turn and fire with Y turret only, and the results of this to follow.
2) Been Y turret another ' quadruple' out of 49 salvoes she fired only 152 shells out of 196 possible.
It is kind of obvious that been Bismarck a 'sitting duck' any average clever commander was going to utilize more KG V forward turrets ( if possible ) and NOT the aft one for output reasons, .. at least the same ... but due to the situation KG V fired only 40 salvoes from the forward and 49 from the aft .... so more ... guess why
Now the sentences looks of course very different as you can see and my one are only based on the real numbers, not driven to try to demonstrate the opposite of them .
Any thought
Ciao Antonio
so here we are now discussing the last battle, good
This is what I am currently collecting all the material for future works, so it is for me a good source of information.
Before moving into the hits penetration of Bismarck hull and relative analysis, I would like you to focus on one set of data I found of particular interest on that article since I saw it time ago.
Did you noticed the shells expenditure of Rodney and KG V ?
Did you notice the KG V shell expenditure differences among all guns and in particular between turret A ( quadruple ) and B ( twin ) ?
Now do we have to assume that PoW still had only ' theething problems ' as a new untrained ship, .. or can we assess more fairly that this was a KG V class type of problems on the quadruple turrets ?KG V expended 339 rounds, spread as follows :
A1 (22), A2 (27), A3 (30), A4 (32),
B1 (36), B2 (40),
Y1 (21), Y2 (45), Y3 (37), Y4 (49).
The effect of ammunition feed problems can be seen but the ammunition expenditure is interesting in that it shows that the ship maintained a credible output.
If one do analyze Duke of York data on December 26th against Scharnhorst the situation will look a bit better, but still awful for a battleship fully trained, ... that is why HMS Vanguard after was equipped with 4 twin turrets as Royal Navy got read of those 'problematic' quadruple design.
Now the statement I have copied above should have been written this way according to me :
1) Forward turrets could have fired 40 salvoes or more but only A turret was close to the maximum output although one gun missed 4 shells.
B turret know problems caused an evident lost of output ( 109 out of 140 ) and due to the B turret utilization impossibility that rested 30 minutes forced the ship to turn and fire with Y turret only, and the results of this to follow.
2) Been Y turret another ' quadruple' out of 49 salvoes she fired only 152 shells out of 196 possible.
It is kind of obvious that been Bismarck a 'sitting duck' any average clever commander was going to utilize more KG V forward turrets ( if possible ) and NOT the aft one for output reasons, .. at least the same ... but due to the situation KG V fired only 40 salvoes from the forward and 49 from the aft .... so more ... guess why
Now the sentences looks of course very different as you can see and my one are only based on the real numbers, not driven to try to demonstrate the opposite of them
.Any thought
Ciao Antonio
-
Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Turret's mixed
Ciao all,
... my fault guys ....
I have just inverted A and B turrets on the statement above.....
So you should read them one in the place of the other, as A was the quadruple and B the twin of course ....
this way :
Ciao Antonio
... my fault guys ....
1) Forward turrets could have fired 40 salvoes or more but only A turret was close to the maximum output although one gun missed 4 shells.
B turret know problems caused an evident lost of output ( 109 out of 140 ) and due to the B turret utilization impossibility that rested 30 minutes forced the ship to turn and fire with Y turret only, and the results of this to follow.
I have just inverted A and B turrets on the statement above.....
So you should read them one in the place of the other, as A was the quadruple and B the twin of course ....
this way :
..sorry for the confusion ....1) Forward turrets could have fired 40 salvoes or more but only B turret was close to the maximum output although one gun missed 4 shells.
A turret know problems caused an evident lost of output ( 109 out of 140 ) and due to the A turret utilization impossibility, that rested 30 minutes, forcing the ship to turn and fire with Y turret only, and the results of this to follow.
Ciao Antonio
Ah, that's clear now...
Ciao Antonio,
I was reading too about the spending of ammunition of the British ships during the Final Battle of may 27th.
I was wondering that from the pics taken in the wrecksite it's quite clear that the only shells which really created damage on Bismarcks upper structures and weapons were the Rodney 16" (406 mm), which had a clear advantage on weight and caliber.In effect, analizing the hits scored from the King George class ships during the war, apart the Duke's lucky strike on Scharnhorst boilers, seems their 14" guns weren't that effective weapons, despite of their number.
Apart that, the quadruple tower sistem seems to have given lots of problems throughout all the war, fact that makes me suspect about the real effectivity in battle of similar unit for which the same solution were adopted, like french Richelieu class.
Ciao Antonio,
I was reading too about the spending of ammunition of the British ships during the Final Battle of may 27th.
I was wondering that from the pics taken in the wrecksite it's quite clear that the only shells which really created damage on Bismarcks upper structures and weapons were the Rodney 16" (406 mm), which had a clear advantage on weight and caliber.In effect, analizing the hits scored from the King George class ships during the war, apart the Duke's lucky strike on Scharnhorst boilers, seems their 14" guns weren't that effective weapons, despite of their number.
Apart that, the quadruple tower sistem seems to have given lots of problems throughout all the war, fact that makes me suspect about the real effectivity in battle of similar unit for which the same solution were adopted, like french Richelieu class.
"Wir kämpfen bis zur letzten Granate."
Günther Lütjens
Günther Lütjens
Well - allow me to start with some general comments on this topic:
I think it is a good thing to do to continue analysing those days gone by. One might find new clues, one might unearth new sights, one might just be able to put together two previously unrelated findings – well – and sometimes one gets trapped in reversed findings
and goes along a misleading path for a while but that is still part of the process.
But one should shy away from generalized statements about how good, brilliant, wonderful this or that was or was not.
Yes – few direct penetrating hits in Bismarck’s Hull have been found by use of submersibles.
So what? Her hull lies deep in the mud. We do not know if she suffered more deep diving hits like the one HMS Prince of Wales dished out to her in the Denmark Straight. Unlikely looking at most of the ranges the battle was fought over but still very, very well possible.
Secondly near misses do a hell of a lot of splinter damage. Her hull might be riddled with punch holes in parts. That would not have flooded her vitals but that would have brought her down quite significantly.
Thirdly she must have taken in vast amounts of water due to fire fighting. Some of her magazines have been flooded to prevent blow up. That’s tons of water in her guts.
So just looking at her wreck and happily concluding that she must have been bone-dry inside at a given time point X, is – aehm - misleading.
The survivors statements have been analysed over the years both from Bismarck supporters (unsinkable Queen of the Seas!) and the Rule Britannia fraction (We did sink her!) and one might even say they have been analysed by fairly neutral and respectable historians.
They remain inconclusive.
Bismarck had been deep in the water, when the scuttling order was given. How deep? Too deep already? Sinking?
We do not know. (By the way – does it matter? She was finished anyhow. Scuttling was a common process in disposing of a wreck.)
But counting shell holes in the few visible areas of a wreck deep down on the seabed does not answer this old question.
The British vessels stood too far up to gain good insights in Bismarck’s buoyancy at any given time point.
There might be buried deep a role of film or photos from the Swordfish. Now that would shine some additional light on the story. Do they (still?) exist? Did they ever? If so – where are they now?
Which leads us to the article in question: The author does quote a photo that allows to calculate the amount of water Bismarck shipped at about the time of the scuttling order and he assesses the water to be around 1o.ooo tons. I have asked him a long while ago about that photo but did not get a reply.
May be he has a good and not generally known shot of her in her last hour. If so – seeing that photo would be very interesting!
In general I think the article does not much to shine light on Bismarck’s last stand. A statement like “It is this last graphic that proves that the armor belt was repeatedly pierced by gunfire.” does sound very strange to me. Very strange indeed! If I draw a shark’s bite onto that graphic does it prove that Bismarck fell foul on the big white one?
Graphics illustrate. They do prove nothing.
If the blast damage on Bismarck’s catapult deck is due to HMS Dorsetshire’s last torpedo remains in discussion. Good evidence is there but proves are missing. Catapults do work on compressed air. A shell hit that found the pressure tanks could have done a lot of damage as well. More pictures or advise from blast damage experts is needed on this one.
I think his statement about the “surgical precision” in the time interval from 8:59 to 9:1o is misleading as well. Over the ranges the battle was fought at that stage, one shoots at the enemy ship not at it’s foretop rangefinder or it’s turret B. Naval gunnery is not that accurate over that ranges.
He layes down a smokescreen about the fact that there had been nine hits in eleven minutes. So what? Two paragraphs further down he describes HMS King George V’s range finding problems. There is no surgical precision. There is n hits out of N shots fired. n oder N gives you the accuracy. Nothing surgical there!
I had booked that article in the “Rule Britannia” draw. But in discussing it one should avoid ending up on the opposite end of the scale in the “Queen of the seas” box.
@Antonio
On HMS Vanguard: She was build around her turrets. They were just there in storage when an additional Battleship was needed. The fact that they were used does give neither credit nor criticism to the modern 14’ Quads.
One might argue that if the 14’ Quads had been a roaring success there should have been discussion of HMS Vanguard inheriting four of the eight Quads that came free when the KGVs were scrapped.
I am not aware of any plans for that. But one has to say that would have been a massive rebuild! But then – if the 14’ Quads had been very, very good, they might have thought about it. But as it was, HMS Vanguard was well served with her rather ancient guns and turrets.
@Matthias
I think it is difficult to use Bismarck’s wreck to assess the effectiveness of HMS Rodney’s versus HMS King George V’s main armament.
They did share jobs in the end with HMS Rodney pounding at close range while HMS King Gorge V tried to score decisive plunging hits at grater range. So for purpose of gaining credit the King had the harder job to do.
Just my few thoughts, guys!
Ciao,
Ufo
I think it is a good thing to do to continue analysing those days gone by. One might find new clues, one might unearth new sights, one might just be able to put together two previously unrelated findings – well – and sometimes one gets trapped in reversed findings
and goes along a misleading path for a while but that is still part of the process.But one should shy away from generalized statements about how good, brilliant, wonderful this or that was or was not.
Yes – few direct penetrating hits in Bismarck’s Hull have been found by use of submersibles.
So what? Her hull lies deep in the mud. We do not know if she suffered more deep diving hits like the one HMS Prince of Wales dished out to her in the Denmark Straight. Unlikely looking at most of the ranges the battle was fought over but still very, very well possible.
Secondly near misses do a hell of a lot of splinter damage. Her hull might be riddled with punch holes in parts. That would not have flooded her vitals but that would have brought her down quite significantly.
Thirdly she must have taken in vast amounts of water due to fire fighting. Some of her magazines have been flooded to prevent blow up. That’s tons of water in her guts.
So just looking at her wreck and happily concluding that she must have been bone-dry inside at a given time point X, is – aehm - misleading.
The survivors statements have been analysed over the years both from Bismarck supporters (unsinkable Queen of the Seas!) and the Rule Britannia fraction (We did sink her!) and one might even say they have been analysed by fairly neutral and respectable historians.
They remain inconclusive.
Bismarck had been deep in the water, when the scuttling order was given. How deep? Too deep already? Sinking?
We do not know. (By the way – does it matter? She was finished anyhow. Scuttling was a common process in disposing of a wreck.)
But counting shell holes in the few visible areas of a wreck deep down on the seabed does not answer this old question.
The British vessels stood too far up to gain good insights in Bismarck’s buoyancy at any given time point.
There might be buried deep a role of film or photos from the Swordfish. Now that would shine some additional light on the story. Do they (still?) exist? Did they ever? If so – where are they now?
Which leads us to the article in question: The author does quote a photo that allows to calculate the amount of water Bismarck shipped at about the time of the scuttling order and he assesses the water to be around 1o.ooo tons. I have asked him a long while ago about that photo but did not get a reply.
May be he has a good and not generally known shot of her in her last hour. If so – seeing that photo would be very interesting!
In general I think the article does not much to shine light on Bismarck’s last stand. A statement like “It is this last graphic that proves that the armor belt was repeatedly pierced by gunfire.” does sound very strange to me. Very strange indeed! If I draw a shark’s bite onto that graphic does it prove that Bismarck fell foul on the big white one?
Graphics illustrate. They do prove nothing. If the blast damage on Bismarck’s catapult deck is due to HMS Dorsetshire’s last torpedo remains in discussion. Good evidence is there but proves are missing. Catapults do work on compressed air. A shell hit that found the pressure tanks could have done a lot of damage as well. More pictures or advise from blast damage experts is needed on this one.
I think his statement about the “surgical precision” in the time interval from 8:59 to 9:1o is misleading as well. Over the ranges the battle was fought at that stage, one shoots at the enemy ship not at it’s foretop rangefinder or it’s turret B. Naval gunnery is not that accurate over that ranges.
He layes down a smokescreen about the fact that there had been nine hits in eleven minutes. So what? Two paragraphs further down he describes HMS King George V’s range finding problems. There is no surgical precision. There is n hits out of N shots fired. n oder N gives you the accuracy. Nothing surgical there!
I had booked that article in the “Rule Britannia” draw. But in discussing it one should avoid ending up on the opposite end of the scale in the “Queen of the seas” box.
@Antonio
On HMS Vanguard: She was build around her turrets. They were just there in storage when an additional Battleship was needed. The fact that they were used does give neither credit nor criticism to the modern 14’ Quads.
One might argue that if the 14’ Quads had been a roaring success there should have been discussion of HMS Vanguard inheriting four of the eight Quads that came free when the KGVs were scrapped.
I am not aware of any plans for that. But one has to say that would have been a massive rebuild! But then – if the 14’ Quads had been very, very good, they might have thought about it. But as it was, HMS Vanguard was well served with her rather ancient guns and turrets.
@Matthias
I think it is difficult to use Bismarck’s wreck to assess the effectiveness of HMS Rodney’s versus HMS King George V’s main armament.
They did share jobs in the end with HMS Rodney pounding at close range while HMS King Gorge V tried to score decisive plunging hits at grater range. So for purpose of gaining credit the King had the harder job to do.
Just my few thoughts, guys!
Ciao,
Ufo
I generally agree with you, anyway we mostly could only say "if" and using conditional, due to our lack of precise information.The most part of our discussion is indeed just a supposition, proven or not.
No, it's not for demonstrate the effectivity of King George V in this specific engagement, but about general effectivity of the 15" guns her class was equipped with.ufo wrote: They did share jobs in the end with HMS Rodney pounding at close range while HMS King Gorge V tried to score decisive plunging hits at grater range. So for purpose of gaining credit the King had the harder job to do.
"Wir kämpfen bis zur letzten Granate."
Günther Lütjens
Günther Lütjens
-
Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Last battle discussion
Ciao Ufo, Matthias and all,
first of all let me say that it is a pleasure to have more persons covering this topic hopefully as we proceed, as that is to me the most important thing as the competences and knowledge are spread around and based on my experience on Denmark Strait it helps a lot, it is fundamental.
So welcome to anybody that wants to join in on this, I started time ago another dedicated post with a map but it is not so important ( as long as we keep those 2 and do not proliferate as I think the less the best and the more focus).
@ UFO,
thank for you clear statements, this allows me to underline that, as I wrote several times already, I am not in favour of ' Queen of the sea or unsinkable ship' group as well as I am not in favour of the 'Rule Britannia ' one.
I simply do not like the idea of extreme positions and blind support to one side or the other, and as more as I proceed learning the history of those fantastic ships as more I love them all, and beleive it or not I am starting loving a lot HMS Prince of Wales for example, as HMS Hood is already since lot of time into my heart as well, .. I love all battleships, .. but some are special to me,.... no flag difference.
I love to study history and not to use history to prove or support a pre-conceived view, ... I do not like the idea, .. my work is only driven to re-construct history as best as I can about those ships fully respecting their memories and especially their crew, .. again no flag difference.
My goal is to try to write a version of this last battle that can be as analitical and chronological as possible, similar to the Denmark Strait one.
I have to say that it 'should be' easier as a lot more information are available, but I cannot say that for sure at this moment, surely lots better battle maps ( some I have to thank you ) but as far as I see less photos, I have to check the films.
As I did not spent lot of time, on ' lucky' hits on Hood or 'theething' problems of PoW, or Lindemann/Lutjens discussions, I think I will not spend lot of time on same type of questions on this battle, like who really sunk the Bismarck that as you wrote as been already analyzed extensively.
Thanks for the HMS Vanguard addittional infos, I did not know about that, and I must tell you that my statements about KG V ' quadruple ' turrets performances are just a very ''light version '' of some readings I had lately on a main guns/turrets dedicated book published on USA that I think is well done on the topic ( title is '' The Big Guns '' ), so it seems those problems have been very well analyzed after the war.
Did you all already know this article ?? :
http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/index_inro.htm
as you can see I am collecting infos....
Ciao Antonio
first of all let me say that it is a pleasure to have more persons covering this topic hopefully as we proceed, as that is to me the most important thing as the competences and knowledge are spread around and based on my experience on Denmark Strait it helps a lot, it is fundamental.
So welcome to anybody that wants to join in on this, I started time ago another dedicated post with a map but it is not so important ( as long as we keep those 2 and do not proliferate as I think the less the best and the more focus).
@ UFO,
thank for you clear statements, this allows me to underline that, as I wrote several times already, I am not in favour of ' Queen of the sea or unsinkable ship' group as well as I am not in favour of the 'Rule Britannia ' one.
I simply do not like the idea of extreme positions and blind support to one side or the other, and as more as I proceed learning the history of those fantastic ships as more I love them all, and beleive it or not I am starting loving a lot HMS Prince of Wales for example, as HMS Hood is already since lot of time into my heart as well, .. I love all battleships, .. but some are special to me,.... no flag difference.
I love to study history and not to use history to prove or support a pre-conceived view, ... I do not like the idea, .. my work is only driven to re-construct history as best as I can about those ships fully respecting their memories and especially their crew, .. again no flag difference.
My goal is to try to write a version of this last battle that can be as analitical and chronological as possible, similar to the Denmark Strait one.
I have to say that it 'should be' easier as a lot more information are available, but I cannot say that for sure at this moment, surely lots better battle maps ( some I have to thank you
) but as far as I see less photos, I have to check the films.As I did not spent lot of time, on ' lucky' hits on Hood or 'theething' problems of PoW, or Lindemann/Lutjens discussions, I think I will not spend lot of time on same type of questions on this battle, like who really sunk the Bismarck that as you wrote as been already analyzed extensively.
Thanks for the HMS Vanguard addittional infos, I did not know about that, and I must tell you that my statements about KG V ' quadruple ' turrets performances are just a very ''light version '' of some readings I had lately on a main guns/turrets dedicated book published on USA that I think is well done on the topic ( title is '' The Big Guns '' ), so it seems those problems have been very well analyzed after the war.
Did you all already know this article ?? :
http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/index_inro.htm
as you can see I am collecting infos....
Ciao Antonio
Infact.I must say I really love HMS Victory and more then once I wondered about to buy the wooden kit and built Nelson's flagship... 
And anyway every person with some common sense and knowledge about history will recognize that the glorious Royal Navy is, among the others, the one which bears the longer and deeper tradition.Every sea lover should keep for her and for the many brave men who fought and died for her the deepest respect.
As Antonio just stated, history should never become a political instrument or a way to demonstrate the superiority of a group, race or flag.
Ending this little OT, I was intentioned to read carefully that article as soon as I have the time, cause it seems really interesting...
And anyway every person with some common sense and knowledge about history will recognize that the glorious Royal Navy is, among the others, the one which bears the longer and deeper tradition.Every sea lover should keep for her and for the many brave men who fought and died for her the deepest respect.
As Antonio just stated, history should never become a political instrument or a way to demonstrate the superiority of a group, race or flag.
Ending this little OT, I was intentioned to read carefully that article as soon as I have the time, cause it seems really interesting...
"Wir kämpfen bis zur letzten Granate."
Günther Lütjens
Günther Lütjens
-
Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
My HMS Victory
Ciao Matthias, UFO and all,
.. and if ever you will come to visit me I will show you my HMS Victory in wood by Mantua Model.
http://naturecoast.com/hobby/mantuap.ht ... %20VICTORY
.. because when it come to pure Naval strategy than Lord Nelson is the reference,.. and his ship model is a must to have.
Ciao Antonio
.. and if ever you will come to visit me I will show you my HMS Victory in wood by Mantua Model.
http://naturecoast.com/hobby/mantuap.ht ... %20VICTORY
.. because when it come to pure Naval strategy than Lord Nelson is the reference,.. and his ship model is a must to have
.Ciao Antonio
