Bismarck firing procedures at DS

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "we cannot state definitively, for example, when firing of those 28 salvos ceased although it is implied to have occurred over ~12.8 minutes "

28 salvos under Jasper control is Mr.Dunmunro's ignorance demonstration. Time ago a denier his friend confirmed (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 420#p69464) clearly that Jasper count of salvos had been ZEROED by the change of target, thus 28+5= 33 (elementary school calculation) were fired from the fore director, the remaining from the aft....
I don't comment about the pure SPECULATION of 12,8 minutes......

.

Your analysis is still falling down...

1) Fact: Jasper states an average salvo time of 27-28 seconds
2) Fact: Jasper states an open fire time of 0555 and ceasefire at 0609.
3) Fact: Jasper states that after 28 salvos control was shifted to the after director.

If we take 33 salvos (28+5) and multiply that times 27.5 we get 909.15 seconds or ~15 minutes....

4) Fact: Jasper states that further salvos were fired via after director control.

So we have to conclude that 28 is the total number of salvos fired prior to shifting to after director control since 28 + 5 invalidates Fact 1 and doesn't leave time for Fact 4 to occur. Jasper states after 28 salvos, not after 28 + 5 salvos. Again you just make things up and present them as facts even when they contradict clear statements by Jasper.

If you want to argue that Jasper is lying then that's fine except then you have no information at all.

There's a reason why I started a separate thread for PE's firing procedure.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Still alcohol problems, I see: are we speaking here of Bismarck or PG firing ? Your above post is PG and here we are at BS.....

You use 27-28 seconds of rate of fire but you have no idea if this period of time is between semi-salvos, full salvos or a mix. We don't know what 27-28 means but you are too drunk to understand it.

I give up. You are too ignorant to follow the reasoning and too arrogant for admitting your ignorance.




Let's stay with BISMARCK here:

Let's forget my table (that has already been reviewed before publication by a gunnery expert, not by a drunkard) for a while.

Let's stay withINCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS like these (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =90#p79686) proving PoW "excellent" (Adm.Santarini) gunnery performances and with INCONTROVERTIBLE figures like 93 fired shells, clearly demonstrating that PoW effective # shells per minute was better than Bismarck one.

[dunmunro]

This is what we actually know expressed in the same format as per McMullen:

[dunmunro]

This is what we know actually about PoW, PE and Bismarck with some mild speculation for Bismarck in terms of ceasefire times:



consequently there should be a +/- error bar for Bismarck's data.

I assumed that Aylwin would have ordered 3 x 2 gun salvos for Y turret but was only able to fire 1 x 2 gun and 2 x 1 gun salvos. PoW's GAR doesn't state when Aylwin was ordered to ceasefire so we must obtain that info from PoW's log (0611).

When we look at what we actually know it doesn't seem so sanguine for PoW and this excludes the relative lack of secondary output from PoW which would have been a factor if PoW had continued with a close range action.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

apart from the fact that Mr.Dunmunro is apparently unable to build his own spreadsheet because he has NOT even understood McMullen original table formulas (Enclosure I in his GAR: http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm) ,
I will not come back explaining him how to build a comparison table, using the same methodology, for Bismarck (and PG) with the only assumption of the ordered shots for BS only, and normalizing all the salvos to 4-guns-salvos.... It will be published and he will hopefully be able to learn something.
I hope he will find an idiot that will publish his above manually edited bullshit.



Let's stay with BISMARCK here:

Let's forget my original table (that has already been reviewed before publication by a true gunnery expert...) for a while. Anybody reading here has made up an idea of the quality of his work vs my one.

Let's stay with INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS like these (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =90#p79686) proving PoW "excellent" (Adm.Santarini) gunnery performances and with INCONTROVERTIBLE figures like 93 fired shells, clearly demonstrating that PoW effective # shells per minute was better than Bismarck one, at least until Leach's "decision" to turn away, scrambling both gunnery and turrets' loading mechanisms....




Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

I suggest you to quit answering those non sense unless associated to a valuable analysis fairly and correctly presented in alternative to what we have largely provided on this forum, ... and thru our publications.

Just as Alecsandros correctly recommended recently, ...

Keep on mind that at this point we have largely won the historical discussion about the Court Martial and the associated Cover Up, ... and they have nothing else left to hang on to ... just useless discussions about small details, ... the remaining matter of opinions on small left mismatches, ...


Bye Antonio

[swpz]

3rd Artillery Officer on board Bismarck wrote that Bismarck consumed 40 shots to destroy Hood. That means 5 full salvos (5 x (4+4)).
Bismarck's firing procedure is well known and thoroughly discussed in other parts of the forum. Bismarck fired semisalvo1 with Anton+Bruno and semisalvo2 with Caesar/Dora, at an interval of perhaps 2 seconds between them (semisalvo1 took about 1 second to fire, then pause 2 seconds, then semisalvo2 took about 1 second to fire). Observations for fall of shot, corrections, and waiting for automatic realigning of the guns, as well as waiting for the target to cross the designated field of fire , took time between successive salvos to develop.

This is the exact part I'm having trouble grasping.

The British observed 4 gun salvos landing on Hood and by the 2nd or 3rd salvo Hood as hit. By the 5th salvo Hood was destroyed. At no point did the British note more than 4 shells landing as we have Leach's testimony of a 4 shot salvo destroying Hood. Other witnesses describe where the shots land but Leach is the one who makes it crystal clear how many shots were landing.

So in this case, if Bismarck was firing 4 gun salvos and the British counted 5 salvos before Hood's destruction, then how on earth does one arrive at 40 shots? How were the British counting? Were they counting semi salvos as full salvos? Was Bismarck's spread somehow so good that 8 shells actually looked like 4 to the British? If the British were counting semi salvos as full then Bismarck effectively only fired 2-3 full salvos before Hood was destroyed as they counted 5 maximum at the time of destruction which would actually be 2.5 actual full salvos. The spread part is impossible and can be ignored but I can't think of any other reason how the British could possibly miss 8 for 4.

This is pretty much why I'm pretty confused by the 40 shots to sink Hood account.

[alecsandros]

This is the exact part I'm having trouble grasping.

I struggled with that for some time.
The solution (?) came from Thorsten, and from Antonio and David.
Bismarck wasn't firing 4 guns simultaneously; if you watch the Denmark Strait battle movie frame by frame, you will observe that the appearance of the flame of fire at one gun is different from the others; i.e. the 4 guns of same semisalvo did not fire together. Thus, the shells wouldn't fall together (but slightly delayed between them, and the water columns would be slightly delayed as well). So there is separation (in time) between shots of same semisalvo, and between semisalvos.

I know this is somewhat confusing to grasp, but in the end, for a witness 20km away, all 8 shots from the 'full salvo' would land at slightly delayed times, thus the water columns would form somewhat at different times. The total time of the impact with the water plane for a 8 gun salvo would probably be around 3 to 4 seconds (from shell1 to shell8).

From Prince of Wales gunnery report:

"E - Notes on Enemy Gunnery
1.Spreads. - The small size of the enemy spreads was remarkable. The driving bands of the 15-in. projectile discovered in Prince of Wales are in a perfect state of repair and appear tougher and larger than those of our shell. Although this may assist the accurate ranging of their guns, it is likely that such driving bands cause the guns to wear more quickly.
2.Method of Fire. - Bismarck appeared to fire the whole of her fore group (i.e. "A" and "B" turrets), followed by the whole of her aft group ("X" and "Y" turrets). Towards the end of the morning action, guns in a group were definitely observed to "ripple" as if one or more turrets were in gunlayers' firing.
3.All enemy cruisers and capital ships appear to have their large rangefinders mounted considerably higher than than in our ships. Provided vibration can be eliminated, this fact should be kept in mind in future designs of our ships."

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

I suggest you to quit answering those non sense unless associated to a valuable analysis fairly and correctly presented in alternative to what we have largely provided on this forum, ... and thru our publications.

Just as Alecsandros correctly recommended recently, ...

Keep on mind that at this point we have largely won the historical discussion about the Court Martial and the associated Cover Up, ... and they have nothing else left to hang on to ... just useless discussions about small details, ... the remaining matter of opinions on small left mismatches, ...


Bye Antonio

The only thing you have "won" is too make A/A a laughing stock who now has zero credibility as a naval historian.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

a pathetic hooligan wrote: "The only thing you have "won" is too make A/A a laughing stock who now has zero credibility as a naval historian"

"ai posteri l'ardua sentenza" (A.Manzoni: 5 Maggio) (translation: "the next generations will have to judge about this difficult matter").

Not so "difficult" after Mr.Dunmunro last posts, mixing salvo and broadsides, ordered shots and fired shells, inventing open and cease fire timings, imagining figures and not even able to build an own spreadsheet,.......I doubt he can publish such nonsense, while WE WILL.


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

apart from the fact that Mr.Dunmunro is apparently unable to build his own spreadsheet because he has NOT even understood McMullen original table formulas (Enclosure I in his GAR: http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm) ,
I will not come back explaining him how to build a comparison table, using the same methodology, for Bismarck (and PG) with the only assumption of the ordered shots for BS only, and normalizing all the salvos to 4-guns-salvos.... It will be published and he will hopefully be able to learn something.
I hope he will find an idiot that will publish his above manually edited bullshit.



Let's stay with BISMARCK here:

Let's forget my original table (that has already been reviewed before publication by a true gunnery expert...) for a while. Anybody reading here has made up an idea of the quality of his work vs my one.

Let's stay with INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS like these (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =90#p79686) proving PoW "excellent" (Adm.Santarini) gunnery performances and with INCONTROVERTIBLE figures like 93 fired shells, clearly demonstrating that PoW effective # shells per minute was better than Bismarck one, at least until Leach's "decision" to turn away, scrambling both gunnery and turrets' loading mechanisms....




Bye, Alberto

we don't have a GAR for Bismarck, and only the barest of accounts for PE.

You have no idea how many 38cm rounds were fired before PoW's Y turret went into local control thus the only valid point of comparison is the total number of rounds fired between open fire (which we know for PoW and we have RN observer's time for Bismarck) and ceasefire. We don't actually know when Lutjens ordered ceasefire, we only know when PE ceased fire and it is logical that Bismarck would have ceased fire before PE since Lutjens was apparently using signal flags to transmit that data. We know when PoW opened fire, but the only ceasefire time we have is 0611, as per PoW's log. Thus when we create a table showing total rounds fired between open fire and ceasefire it heavily favours Bismarck. Even if we arbitrarily decide that Aylwin ceased fire at 0605 we still have a lower RoF for PoW over 12 minutes than Bismarck over 14 minutes.

Let's stay with INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS like these (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =90#p79686) proving PoW "excellent" (Adm.Santarini) gunnery performances and with INCONTROVERTIBLE figures like fired shells, clearly demonstrating that PoW effective # shells per minute was better than Bismarck one, at least until Leach's "decision" to turn away, scrambling both gunnery and turrets' loading mechanisms....

INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: Bismarck fired 93 x 38cm rounds (actually we take this number on faith as we have no access to a GAR)

INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT: PoW fired 59 x 14in rounds. (at least if we use her GAR as the definitive source)

In most parts of the world 93 is considered larger than 59...

You have based Bismarck's output over 14 minutes and you refuse to even contemplate that the 38cm RoF was higher at some points of the action that others (and this alone marks you as a hopeless fraud). However if we build a table for PoW using the same methodology of rounds fired between open fire and cease fire then PoW's RoF per minute falls well below that of Bismarck.

You've imagined Bismarck's RoF as being constant.
You've imagined her requested output.
You've imagined the total number Bismarck salvos fired.

In most parts of the world people who try to pass off as fact things that they've imagined, are called "liars".

The only INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT here is that you're a liar.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "In most parts of the world 93 is considered larger than 59.."

But in no part of the world 93 shells in 14 minutes (with all guns bearing) is larger than 55 in 8.5 (with 40% armament wooded for almost 50% of total firing timing)....
I would ask him the final result for both ships, but mathematics is too difficult for these deniers. I suggest them to re-start their blah-blah on another argument instead: e.g. the Court Martial "myth"....

Dunmunro wrote: "Even if we arbitrarily decide that Aylwin ceased fire at 0605 we still have a lower RoF for PoW over 12 minutes than Bismarck over 14 minutes."

Please tell McMullen he was an incompetent: he should have used 12 minutes to describe the shooting of PoW, not 8.5 minutes, in order to better justify his timid Captain.
The correct interval to be used is of course the time the ships were firing in central control and fighting, not to add the minutes when a ship's gunnery had been scrambled by the hard turn away ordered by her Captain and Alwin managed to fire the few shells available.... ... McMullen did it correctly, of course !

Dunmunro wrote: "you refuse to even contemplate that the 38cm RoF was higher at some points of the action that others....You've imagined Bismarck's RoF as being constant."

This has nothing to do with mathematical calculations to establish the mean values (formulas that this guy is unable to understand). The average values are there and cannot be changed by someone overwriting the figures with his speculations.

Anyone is free to present his own reconstruction of the battle (only Antonio has done such a great work, up to now) imagining (based on what ? ) that Bismarck fired at a very different rate in different stages of the battle (preferably, for the deniers, before Leach's retreat). However the film taken after 6:03:30 + the photos taken after 6:05 demonstrate that this is simply not true.
I personally believe that Bismarck RoF varied, but not dramatically, during the engagement as shown in the salvo chart I have posted several times.
When Mr.Dunmunro will present his detailed salvo chart for Bismarck, matching all evidences and putting the available photos/film frames close to each salvo, we will discuss (and laugh).
For the time being, he is just denying a reconstruction WITHOUT having any alternative proposal (to safe time and effort, he can try to edit Antonio's battlemap overwriting the parts he doesn't like, as he did with my "annoying table")

Dunmunro wrote: "The only INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT here is that you're a liar."

and Mr.Dunmunro is incontrovertibly an IGNORANT, or worse....



Bye, Alberto


P.S.The INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS are still here (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =90#p79686) and this guy has not even tried to answer them, because they fully confirm Adm.Santarini published judgement about PoW "excellent" gunnery performance, extremely annoying for these RN hooligans that desperately need to believe the PoW was firing poorly.

Santarini_pag.50_PoW_Gunnery_Performance.jpg (30.08 KiB) Viewed 928 times

[dunmunro]

Dunmunro wrote: "In most parts of the world 93 is considered larger than 59.."

But in no part of the world 93 shells in 14 minutes (with all guns bearing) is larger than 55 in 8.5 (with 40% armament wooded for almost 50% of total firing timing)....

PoW's AFCT controlled output was over 8min 58 seconds ( 0553-0602)

How many rounds did Bismarck fire in the same time? I'll give you a caution that any answer other than "I don't know" will be a lie.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

I stand corrected: 8.58 minutes not 8.5. I want to concede to Mr.Dunmunro even 9 minutes to make things easier for him.

Still in no part of the world 93 shells in 14 minutes (with all guns bearing) is larger than 55 in 9 (with 40% armament wooded for almost 50% of total firing timing)....

Y turret was wooded for 4 minutes out of 9 for 8 salvos, therefore to compare the two figures, the potential output of 4 guns must be added for 4 minutes to 55, getting to the result that.... Mr.Dunmunro was PATHETICALLY WRONG and I was right.
He can try the calculation IF he is good enough: I have done it, and the advantage for PoW is quite important (7,4 shells/minute for PoW vs 6,6 shells/minute for Bismarck, slightly different values from the ones in my "annoying table" for a reason that Mr.Dunmunro will never be able to understand due to his mathematical ignorance, but substantially confirming it "in toto").....

Let's see if this hooligan is able to calculate the PoW 7,4 shells/minute (I hope the Bismarck 6,6 are not too difficult for him, just being = 93/14.... )



Bye, Alberto


P.S. I ignore his totally irrelevant question, because he is apparently mixing again oranges with apples, we should compare the 9 minutes between 5:53 and 6:02 with 14 minutes between 5:55 and 6:09 (not his fantasy timetable durations)

[dunmunro]

P.S. I ignore his totally irrelevant question, because he is apparently mixing again oranges with apples, we should compare the 9 minutes between 5:53 and 6:02 with 14 minutes between 5:55 and 6:09 (not his fantasy timetable durations)

When you build structures without proper foundations or proper support then they will fall down...


What we should be doing is comparing Bismarck's output up to 0602 but we can't do that because we don't know what it was (although eyewitness accounts suggest about 80 x 38cm rounds fired), do we

The other possible comparisons are for 0553-0609 or 0553-0611...