Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro » Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:47 pm

Pandora wrote:
dunmunro wrote: so 448 rounds fired = 68% for a total of 659 possible. 448 plus 126 = 574 out of 659 = 87%.

I didn't eliminate all errors in drill, just the single error that caused a loss of 74 rounds, and the single problem that resulted in the loss of 51 more. However it is interesting that in the USN each error is called a single "casualty" regardless of how many missed rounds that error caused:

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... dhlcvnVBqI
dunmunro, are you the one posting in the navweaps forums as Andy01?
No, but like many of us, I monitor other groups for interesting posts.

Pandora
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Pandora » Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:02 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Pandora wrote: dunmunro, are you the one posting in the navweaps forums as Andy01?
No, but like many of us, I monitor other groups for interesting posts.
Coincidently you regularly participate in the same type of subjects and use the same arguments that Andy01 uses in the Navweaps forums. Must be your clone. :lol:

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro » Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:16 pm

Pandora wrote:
dunmunro wrote:
Pandora wrote: dunmunro, are you the one posting in the navweaps forums as Andy01?
No, but like many of us, I monitor other groups for interesting posts.
Coincidently you regularly participate in the same type of subjects and use the same arguments that Andy01 uses in the Navweaps forums. Must be your clone. :lol:
Troll.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:25 pm

Hello everybody,

here you have Tarrant and Peter Hodges ... about KG V class 14 inches turrets ...

Bye Antonio :D
Attachments
Hodges_14inch_KGV.jpg
The Big Gun - Peter Hodges
(151.17 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Tarrant_22_guns_KGV.jpg
KG V Class battleship - Tarrant
(237.78 KiB) Not downloaded yet
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Byron Angel » Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:59 pm

Comment by DK Brown ("Nelson to Vanguard") re 14in turret machinery -
"The problem lay in the mounting which was unreliable. ...<snip>... Part of the problem lay in the requirement to pass ammunition into the turret at any angle of training. This involved a transfer ring, moving independently between ship (magazine) and turret. The designers of the ring did not allow enough for the flexibility of a ship and its bending due to heating of the upper deck in sunshine and the action of waves. Either could bend the ship several inches."


Comment by Burt ("British Battleships 1919-1945") re 14in turret machinery -
"Because of the complexity of the quadruple turrets the crews had problems that were noticeable during the action against Bismarck in 1941, for example ...<snip>... These problems were later overcome ..." (Burt referring to DoY vs Scharnhorst in Decembe3r 1943)


B

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:17 am

The major problem lay in the 14in shell arrestors, which were designed to stop the 1600lb shells from sliding around prior to, and after, being rammed onto the rotating shell tray. Under some circumstances of ship roll and/or drill error while the shell was being rammed horizontally onto the revolving shell tray, the shell arrestors would collapse allowing the shell to move and so the nose or tail of the shell could foul the shell ring when it was locked in train with the turret, and began to revolve with the turret. There were minor problems with other areas of the flash tight systems in the turret, but these were inevitable given the RN's insistence that the turret be completely flash tight, to a a far greater degree than any other navy. After the Bismarck actions PoW, and KGV had their turret systems overhauled to alleviate the problem as much as possible and the other ships had these mods while building. However as research shows, the KGV class were probably no worse than other contemporay BBs in overall output, given the weather conditions under which they fought their actions, and their rushed entry into service.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:42 am

Hello everybody,

well, I think we all agree it was a bad turret loading mechanism design problem and it was apparently well known and expected.

Back to this thread original intention, what is important now is to understand hopefully once for good that the “ problem “ on guns and gunnery at 06.02 on board Prince of Wales at Denmark Strait was only “expected“ and the gunners were only “inexperienced” with that turret design complexity and potential problems, just to use original Capt. Leach wording taken directly from Admiral Tovey dispatch ( ref point 22 sections a and b ).

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 9tovey.htm

In summary, what is evident by reading the technical evaluations of that quadruple turret loading mechanism design with so many safety interlocks and parts, … is the fact that when the warship was at fast speed and turning while firing the main guns … the problem will more likely show up immediately.

It happened to Prince of Wales, on both quadruple turrets on May 24, 1941, … it happened to King George V on May 27, 1941 on both quadruple turrets, … and it happened, even if with less degree, during a long time engagement also to Duke of York on December 26, 1943 on both quadruple turrets.

So, no correlation with a warship training status, … or being brand new, … it was a quadruple turret design mechanical problem.

Capt Leach wrote that : “ The practical certainty that owing to mechanical " teething troubles " a full output from the main armament could not be expected “.
He was talking “ full output “, so 10 guns out of 10, and “ expected “.

Fact is that at that point, at 06.02 that day, he was still having the standard gunnery output expected by design from those quadruple turrets, and the “expected “ mechanical problems, ... they probably knew and saw during gunnery training, ... did not show up yet since Prince of Wales was having a good output from her main guns while firing during an almost straight run behind Hood, scoring 3 hits on Bismarck.

It was his decision to turn away 160 degrees south and disengage at fast speed (27 knots) making smoke to hide his warship just after having received 2 hits that caused almost immediately those “expected” mechanical problems into the 2 quadruple turrets to show up that day.

So we can realize now that the guns and gunnery main problems ( A quadruple turret out of action and firepower reduced to 1 gun on Y quadruple turret and 2 guns on B turret that cannot bear to the enemy) on PoW at Denmark Strait were NOT one of the direct cause for the decision to turn away and disengage, ... since they were only a potential concern (expected) on that moment, at 06.02 that morning, as Capt Leach himself wrote on Adm Tovey dispatch, … they have been the immediate result of that decision, … it is just the other way around.

This is the truth and unfortunately it was not written … many, many times … in this way.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Byron Angel » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:03 am

Antonio,
It would be useful to know more about PoW's gun trials and gunnery practice prior to Denmark Strait. Did any of these exercises involve such a high speed course reversal as was made in the battle? This would certainly have placed large structural loads upon the hull structure. DK Brown also mentioned that the difficulty with the transfer ring was only "part of the problem", which implies other faults that required remedy.

B

phil gollin
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 am

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by phil gollin » Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:31 pm

.

As stated above the main problem was with the interlock system and specifically the safety lock system (where the rods were had too much flex).

The 14-inch turrets were NOT "too complicated"/

Too much playing unrealistic wargames.

.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:34 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Byron Angel,

I was expecting this request, and YES, we have this answer too of course ... directly from a Prince of Wales gunnery officer involved on this matter and on Denmark Strait battle.

Directly from the book : " Alarm Starboard ! " written by Geoffrey Brooke edited by Pen &Sword - ISBN 1 84415 230 8 at page 49 ... another thing not written ... too many times ... on the correct way.

As you can read the problem was very well known ... on board HMS Prince of Wales.

@ Phil,

I think Peter Hodges definition of the 14 inches quadruple turret design ... is just perfect ... and very diplomatic too ... and since design for reliability is something I know well ... this time I know what I am talking about.

Yes, they fixed it and improved it after having painfully realized all the troubles, ... but this did not change the reality of the previous occurrences.

Bye Antonio :D
Attachments
PoW_training_Brooke.jpg
(136.91 KiB) Not downloaded yet
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by paulcadogan » Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:10 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Fact is that at that point, at 06.02 that day, he was still having the standard gunnery output expected by design from those quadruple turrets, and the “expected “ mechanical problems, ... they probably knew and saw during gunnery training, ... did not show up yet since Prince of Wales was having a good output from her main guns while firing during an almost straight run behind Hood, scoring 3 hits on Bismarck.
Hi Antonio,

To say that "expected" problems had not occurred prior to 6:02 is not correct. Problems were occurring throughout causing output loss, though not large enough to seriously affect the result (i.e. the 3 hits scored)(see below). Leach could not know Bismarck had been hit, and even if he did suspect, it was painfully obvious that her gunnery efficiency and output were unimpaired and were exceeding what PoW could produce, plus the added fire from PG.

Also PoW's secondary armament directors had been put out of action, silencing those guns after, what...about 3 salvoes? So...facing 8 x 15-inch, 8 x 8-inch, 6 x 5.9-inch and 14 x 4.1-inch at a closing range - only able to reply with 6 or 7 14-inch based on the on-going problems... a very one-sided affair with Norfolk and Suffolk still out of effective range.... it was better to get out of there and await re-inforcement which was known to be coming. To me, Leach made a very brave, lucid and wise decision - especially after having been virtually knocked senseless a minute or two before...

From PoW's Gunnery Aspects Report
( http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm )
B - Events during the First Action

The following defects developed in "A" turret:-
1."A" Turret
On several occasions the shell ring rammers fouled the brackets on the hinge trays for No. 11 interlock. Shell could not be rammed until the bearing of the turret was changed. This also occurred in "Y" but did not prevent ramming.

No. 1 gun only fired one salvo, due to the events described in A (i).

After the second salvo, No. 24A interlock failed on No. 2 shell ring rammer. It was tripped after a short delay and thereafter assisted by hand.

About halfway through the firing, the tappets operating the shell ring arrestor release gear on No. 4 rammer failed to release the arrestor. Subsequent examination has shown that the shaft carrying the levers operating these tappets had twisted. The rammer was kept in action by giving the tappets a heavy blow at each stroke.

Shortly after this, a further defect occurred on No. 4 shell room rammer. When fully withdrawn the rammer failed to clear No. 7 interlock and the ring could not be locked. This was overcome by operating the gear with a pinch-bar at every stroke.

Throughout the engagement the conditions in "A" shell handling room were very bad; water was pouring down from the upper part of the mounting. Only one drain is fitted and became choked; with the result that water accumulated and washed from side to side as the ship rolled. The streams above and floods below drenched the machinery and caused discomfort to the personnel. More drains should be fitted in the shell handling room and consideration given to a system of water catchment combined with improved drainage in the upper parts of the revolving structure. Every effort is being made to improve the pressure systems and further attempts will be made as soon as opportunity occurs to improve the mantlet weathering, but a certain amount of leaking is inevitable.

2."B" Turret
No mechanical defects.

3."Y" Turret

The following defects occurred in "Y" turret:-

Salvo 11 - No. 3 central ammunition hoist was raised with shell but no cordite; No. 25 interlock having failed to prevent this. The interlock was functioning correctly before the engagement. There has been no opportunity to investigate this. It is also reported that the reason no cordite had been rammed was that the indicator in the cordite handling room did not show that the cage had been raised after the previous ramming stroke. This caused the gun to miss salvoes 15 to 20.

Salvo 12 - Front flashdoors of No. 2 gun loading cage failed to open and cage could not be loaded. Flashdoors on transfer tubes were working correctly and investigation showed that adjustment was required on the vertical rod operating the palm levers which open the gun loading cage doors. To make this adjustment, three-quarter inch thread had to be cut on the rod. This defect was put in hand after the engagement had been broken off and was completed by 1300. It would appear that the operating gear had been strained, possibly by the foreign matter in the flashdoor casing making the doors tight. The doors were free when tried in the course of making the repair. This caused the gun to miss salvo 14 onwards.

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.
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:48 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Paul,

of course I agree with you, some problems did occur on those quadruple turrets, just as expected, they were the same one’s Brooke reported into his book that occurred also on the seven ( 7 ) weeks intensive gunnery training they went through.

Thanks for posting the PoW gunnery report, it is very helpful to realize and confirm what I am saying, the 2 quadruple turrets at 06.02 were operating on a very poor conditions and having the expected failures, but they were doing the job. Some output was lost as we can read, … but nothing dramatic until salvo 18 … and also Geoffrey Brooke on his book confirms that of course.

Turret B was defect free as we all very well know.

Before the turn away order basically only 1 gun on A turret was surely out of action ,…9 guns out of 10 could still be used, ... and 7 of them being into the 2 quadruple turrets in a very poor and well known conditions, but exactly the same conditions they knew they were going to go through since the beginning of the action, the same conditions in place when they scored 3 hits on Bismarck. I think it is clear enough at this point.

It was after the order to disengage and turn away at 06.02 that the “ expected “ worst problems occurred, since the A and B turrets cannot bear anymore to the enemy and Y turret ring jammed because on the ships motion/turn away as we know being written into the PoW gunnery report too ( so the number 20 salvo which was the second on local control was after this event), causing the whole Y turret to quit fire after having fired only 4 shells ( 2+1+1 with local control salvoes 19, 20 and 21).

But I think at this point we can evaluate what Capt J.C. Leach himself explained to his crew on that moment and to his Gunnery Officer Colin McMullen that was disappointed about it as Brooke wrote.

You can read it into G. Brooke book at pages 60 and 61, and Brooke is making exactly my points and telling the truth of the events on that moment in my opinion.

It is very important to notice that the order to turn away occurred at 06.02 ( in reality between 06.01 and 06.02 ) and the fact that Y turret ring jammed because of that turn away ( own ship motion - "Y" turrets' shell ring jammed during the turn away and the turret was out of action until 0825, as has been described in Enclosure (III) ).

Does anybody disagree about it now ?

Bye Antonio :D
Attachments
Brooke_Leach_McMullen.JPG
Brooke_Leach_McMullen.JPG (100.43 KiB) Viewed 1616 times
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by paulcadogan » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:10 am

Absolutely....

Thanks for posting the excerpt from Geoffrey Brooke's book.... Seems my little explanation in my last post was EXACTLY what Leach was thinking! :dance: Still, I think most will agree, it was pretty obvious....

I think Tovey's tribute to PoW's crew was well deserved - not just for their performance in the DS battle in which they performed admirably for such a "green" crew, mission-killing their quarry and extracting a little retribution from a stunning German victory, but also for their hard, unrelenting work afterwards to shore up the damage, clear the jammed shell ring, stay in touch with the enemy, re-engaging later to defend Suffolk (and at least giving Bismarck something to think about in the process at 30,000 yards). They certainly did not deserve the name-calling they got in the aftermath....

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:25 am

Hello everybody,

@ Paul,

exactly my friend, ... behind the common knowledge of that event, ... as it has been wrongly written and justified for so many years, ... I think I have discovered a complete different set of reasons while working on the Denmark Strait battle.

It was much more complicated and related to a complex set of factors all having their own importance.

I fully agree with you on the comment that is was not fair to have the Prince of Wales crew paying the bill at the end ... the british sailors and officers of that warship performed very well and absolutely over any reasonable expectation that day.

I like to underline that as long as I progress on finding evidences on Capt J.C. Leach decisions that day, ... as more I understand his real reasons.

See, ... from Denmark Strait, ... to the Articles of War, ... to the KGV quadruple turret design, ... the May 1941 particular war moment, ... Winston Churchill and Royal Navy traditions, ... discipline and court martial ... a warship crew morale ... and how do you sell all this after to the newspapers ... there is a little bit of everything to be learn and understood about it.

Last I would like to spend a word for a gentleman like Geoffrey Brooke must have been, ... RIP brave officer ... :-)

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

phil gollin
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 am

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by phil gollin » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:01 am

.

Antonio - you are a complete idiot (fact, not a "flame war").

READ the reasons in the official reports - they make total sense, whereas you are thinking totally differently from a 1940s mindset and especially a 1940s Royal Navy mindset.

The INTERESTING thing is the "discussion" between Churchill and the Admiralty - THAT is what you should be concentrating on.

.

Post Reply