KGv without Rodney in the final battle

[dunmunro]

KGV had the option to fuel in a neutral Eire port, or in Northern Ireland, but actually chose to refuel in Scotland. Tovey was short on fuel but he had many options if needs be.

De Valara would not have allowed it, particulary as the Luftwaffe had already accidently bombed Dublin in mistake for Belfast. The Irish nationalists would have brooked no aid to Britain anyway (as evidenced by the Irish volunteer servicemen in the British forces being stripped of Eire citizenship) and from the British perspective if Eire did service British warships then there was the risk Erie would do the same for German U-boats.....
Remember that when Nazi Germany did surrender in May 1945 the Dublin embassy was the last German diplomatic post to close... and did so of its own volition.

What exactly would De Valara have done to stop the RN from refueling in an Irish Port?

Plans were made to refuel KGV in Eire:

KING GEORGE V and RODNEY now retired northerly at an economical speed of 17 knots to conserve fuel (a contingency plan was for them to refuel in Eire) escorted by destroyers COSSACK, SIKH, ZULU and JUPITER.
http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono ... orge_V.htm

and under international law even warships could seek shelter in neutral ports.

[dunmunro]

The turret problem did not occur until ~32 mins into the battle and until KGV had fired well over 200 rnds. Exactly when the first hits on Bismarck occurred is hard to say, but RN accounts state that she was hit quickly and Tovey states that she was largely silenced within 30 mins.

Oh I'm very much aware of when KGV's turret problems started. I was just thinking that once the problems started Tovey would have been very frustrated if Bismarck was still afloat and his main weapon was malfunctioning!

Incidentally, I had to come to her defence recently in another forum in which it was stated by a contributor the KGV was largely out of it and Rodney was virtually the sole architect of Bismarck's destruction. By the time I was done with them I was being thanked profusely for all the info I'd provided - they saw the battle in a whole new light!

339 14-inch shells fired vs. Rondey's 380 16-inch - a difference of just 4 KGV broadsides. KGV certainly pumped out more than enough shells too do the job.

In the action KING GEORGE V had fired 339 x 14in shells and 660 x 5.25in shells. Gunnery performance was below the expected standard because of design deficiencies in the interlock system to protect against explosions during loading of the 14in guns. For 7 minutes she was firing at only 80% efficiency and at 40% for 23 minutes. Only B-Turret, the twin, was 100% trouble free. In addition the low freeboard forward caused significant flooding of shell rooms in the heavy weather.

From:http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono ... orge_V.htm

Are those "efficiency" percentages and times correct?

But I still say that once KGV was heavily engaged, Tovey would have brought in Renown, just as he would have brought in Repulse had the interception on the morning of the 25th taken place...

Roberts doesn't state those percentages but does confirm that A turret was out of action for 30 minutes and Y turret for 7 minutes, but he doesn't state whether there was any overlap. However B turret did suffer some loss of output, according to Roberts, due to drill errors but these were only amounted to a few salvos. Apart from the 7min loss of output, Y turret suffered very few problems, although at the end of the battle it suffered a jam in Y2 gun. Roberts account is actually somewhat contradictory so I would really like to read the actual action report.

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Dunmunro: I agree! It would be very interesting to see the same gunnery report we have from PoW on May 24 also available for Rodney and KGV on May 27, with salvo by salvo recorded time and position of the ship.

This would allow to compare the effectiveness of their fire action agaist BS. Just looking at the available battle maps, I think Rodney was closer to BS before KGV, however after 9:30 her course was a zig-zag in front of BS and I expect her turrets could fire only when clear of the after superstructure, therefore loosing some output.

Is anybody aware of the gunnery reports from KGV and Rodney on May 27

Bye, Alberto

[RF]

What exactly would De Valara have done to stop the RN from refueling in an Irish Port?

As head of the Irish Government I would assume he would concern himself with all defence matters and have final authority over whether foreign warships would be allowed into an Eire port or use Eire territorial waters. Of course the RN could refuel in Irish waters without the consent of the government as obviously the Eire Government wouldn't have the military force to physically prevent it. We do know that Churchill did have plans made to forcibly occupy Eire if that country did violate its neutrality in dhowing favour to the Germans.
My point is that I doubt that De Valara would want to be seen to be giving support to Britain, or doing anything that could imply support.

and under international law even warships could seek shelter in neutral ports.

But as the case of the Admiral Graf Spee illustrated there is a difference between shelter and combat enhancement. The boundary of these two is very subjective and open to never ending argument. Especially as to whether a refuelling is permitting a combat enhancement, even retrospectively to combat action.....

[Thorsten Wahl]

Roberts doesn't state those percentages but does confirm that A turret was out of action for 30 minutes and Y turret for 7 minutes, but he doesn't state whether there was any overlap. However B turret did suffer some loss of output, according to Roberts, due to drill errors but these were only amounted to a few salvos. Apart from the 7min loss of output, Y turret suffered very few problems, although at the end of the battle it suffered a jam in Y2 gun. Roberts account is actually somewhat contradictory so I would really like to read the actual action report.

According battlesummery No 5 the breakdowns overlap.

"A, Y and B turrets were out of action for 30 and 7 minutes and for a short unspecified period respectively. This corresponded to a reduction of firepower of 80 per cent for 7 minutes and 40 per cent for 23 minutes, wich might have serious results under less favourable conditions. There were also several breakdowns of individual guns in addition to those affecting the turrets."

The breakdowns were assigned to the so called "run to the northward" since 09:16.

[dunmunro]

Roberts doesn't state those percentages but does confirm that A turret was out of action for 30 minutes and Y turret for 7 minutes, but he doesn't state whether there was any overlap. However B turret did suffer some loss of output, according to Roberts, due to drill errors but these were only amounted to a few salvos. Apart from the 7min loss of output, Y turret suffered very few problems, although at the end of the battle it suffered a jam in Y2 gun. Roberts account is actually somewhat contradictory so I would really like to read the actual action report.

According battlesummery No 5 the breakdowns overlap.

"A, Y and B turrets were out of action for 30 and 7 minutes and for a short unspecified period respectively. This corresponded to a reduction of firepower of 80 per cent for 7 minutes and 40 per cent for 23 minutes, wich might have serious results under less favourable conditions. There were also several breakdowns of individual guns in addition to those affecting the turrets."

The breakdowns were assigned to the so called "run to the northward" since 09:16.

There's a number of problems and inconsistencies in B.S. 5. For example it states that the first hit on Bismarck was from Rodney's third salvo at 0854 when that salvo was fired at 0848. Roberts states that Y turret jammed at 0920 while B.S. 5 states that KGV began her turn to the north "...a minute or so..." after Rodney's turn at 0916.
So the exact timing of event is difficult to determine. We really need to read KGV's action report.