Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

plenty of time to do it Sean, ... just as Dave correctly pointed out.
Dave Saxton wrote:16 seconds is ample time for Bismarck to shift targets.
As Alberto already underlined to you, the HMS Prince of Wales according to his navigating Officer LtntCdr G.W. Rowell, never executed that turn from 280 to 260 degrees.

Consequently the only possibility for PoW to be hit while on course 260 degrees was after the order to turn away at 06.01 and 30 seconds, after she had been hit on the Compass Platform which was apparently the reason that determined that Capt. Leach order.

Alberto already underlined that nobody on the PoW bridge noticed that hit Nr 2 ( or B ) before the one on the Compass Platform ( 1 or A ).

Regarding the turn to 260 before Hood explosion never executed by PoW, we do not only have Rowell ( the most important witness about it ), here another one confirming that it never happened :

PETTY OFFICER RONALD SHERIDAN HOWELL, D/JX 129115, ROYAL NAVY, H.M.S. PRINCE OF WALES.
Called and cautioned.
317. Are you Petty Officer Ronald Sheridan Howell, D/JX 129115, Royal Navy, of H.M.S. Prince of Wales"?
Yes.
318. Where were you and what was your duty?
I was in charge of the flag-deck on the port side and was watching the "Hood" at the time without glasses.
319. Do you remember clearly now what you saw then?
Yes.
320. Describe in as much detail as you can what you saw of the "Hood".
I should imagine about the 5th or 6th salvo after "Hood" opened fire I observed rather a large fire aft, just before the mainmast. Approximately 3 or 4 minutes after this "Hood" blew up.
321. Did you see the "Hood" after the explosion?
All there was to see was a little of her bows.
322. Did you notice whether any of the torpedo doors were open or shut?
No.
323. Did you see any flash of the explosion?
No.
324. Did you see any smoke from the explosion?
No.
325. Did you see any debris in the air after the explosion?
No.
326. Did you hear anything?
Yes, quite a loud report; rather a dull one.
327. Could you describe it in detail?
Something very similar to a depth charge.
328. Have you got any impression in your mind of whereabouts in the "Hood" the explosion occurred?
No.

WITNESS WITHDREW.

(CHIEF POINT OF INTEREST IN THIS WITNESS'S EVIDENCE IF THE FACT THAT BECAUSE HE WAS LOOKING AT THE HOOD'S FOREMOST --- (sic) WAITING FOR AN EXECUTIVE SIGNAL --- HE SAW VERY LITTLE).
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... htm#Howell

He was " WAITING FOR AN EXECUTIVE SIGNAL " when Hood exploded and was carefully looking at her signal deck, ... he was : WAITING !

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 )
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by dunmunro »

We know that PoW made an emergency turn to avoid the wreckage of Hood, and it seems probable that at some point during the turn back to her original course that PoW would have been passing through 260degs.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

Duncan, LtntCdr G.W. Rowell clearly described what he did with PoW to avoid Hood :

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... htm#Rowell
We put the wheel over to starboard to give us a greater clearance from the wreckage and by the time we were abreast of her all that apparently remained were three large sections of the hull which were unrecognisable and themselves slipping into the water.
So, from course 280 they went to starboard to have a greater clearance from the Hood wreckage, ... so around 290 course ... than back to 280 degrees and fired the 16th salvo ... almost simultaneously they received the hit on the compass platform and immediately after they turned away to port ... and after some more time, ... while turning away to port, ... they were finally on course 260 and at that point the hit on the HACS directors was received.

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 )
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

Duncan, LtntCdr G.W. Rowell clearly described what he did with PoW to avoid Hood :

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... htm#Rowell
We put the wheel over to starboard to give us a greater clearance from the wreckage and by the time we were abreast of her all that apparently remained were three large sections of the hull which were unrecognisable and themselves slipping into the water.
So, from course 280 they went to starboard to have a greater clearance from the Hood wreckage, ... so around 290 course ... than back to 280 degrees and fired the 16th salvo ... almost simultaneously they received the hit on the compass platform and immediately after they turned away to port ... and after some more time, ... while turning away to port, ... they were finally on course 260 and at that point the hit on the HACS directors was received.

Bye Antonio :D
It was pointed out earlier that the timeline for the 5.25in open fire (~0557:30) and subsequent ceasefire (3 salvos later ) , after the forward director was disabled has already been established within fairly narrow parameters:
7. The 5.25-in. armament opened fire at a range of 18,600 yards. After firing a deflection triple, a 15-in. shell passed through the superstructure supporting the H.A. directors.

The shot caused the director to jam temporarily in training and the Control Officer of the latter ordered all turrets to go into "aft control". This was carried out, but about the same time a 15-in. shell burst on the boat deck and seriously upset the after starboard H.A. director. The crew of this director had already been considerably blasted by "Y" turret firing on a forward bearing. The 15-in. shell burst threw the Control Officer off his feet, broke his telephone lead, and a splinter hit his earphones and very slightly wounded him. By the time he had regained control of the situation, the target was lost behind smoke astern.

A careful inquiry has been held into the reason why the fore H.A. director jammed and no satisfactory explanation has been arrived at; the director was found to be "free" after the action and it is possible that the locking bolt jumped down and the Control Officer was too hasty in ordering "after control." This fact has not, however, been proved and it is also possible that the severe shaking the director had caused it to "bind" temporarily in training.
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVa.gif (open fire timing for 5.25in at ~0557:30 is clearly marked)

The timing rules out a 38cm hit as causing the disabling of the forward HADT.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Duncan & Antonio:

The damage report demonstrates that the hit n.2 was received when the ship was on 260° course, therefore after battle time 6:01:30 (when the ship was turning to port to disengage, as PoW was never on 260° before that time).
On the other hand, the 5,25" gunnery report looks like the hit arrived at around 5:59 after having fired the deflection triple (does anyone knows how long would it take to fire such a triple to a 5,25" battery ?). My guess is that the 5,25" (defined by Capt. Leach himself in his narrative as "in action") fired more than just the above adjustment triple.

Possibly the gunnery report is just summarising in few lines all the events from 5:57 (open fire with the deflection triple) till 6:03 (smoke screen astern), passing through the hit on the boat deck (after funnel hit or hit n.3 received just around 6:01:30 with the ship still on 280° course, but already starting the turn to port).

Therefore the key question is: do we know for sure how many shells in total were fired by the 5,25" battery on May 24 ? :?: I have never seen a salvo and shell count for the 5,25" while we have the salvo and fired shells count for the 14" battery in full detail.

Does anybody have this info ?

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

I agree with you Alberto, ... those statements are without a defined timeline, ... there are only few real references.

Lets compare what has been written by the key persons :

Capt J.C. Leach :
"Prince of Wales" starboard 5.25" battery was now in action.
Course had to be altered to starboard to avoid remains of "Hood"; meanwhile "Bismarck" had shifted main and secondary armament fire quickly and accurately onto "Prince of Wales". A heavy hit was felt almost immediately.
And at 06.02 compass platform was hit and majority of personnel killed. Navigating Officer was wounded; Commanding Officer unhurt.
The same salvo severed all fire control leads to the port forward H.A. Director and put the starboard forward H.A. Director out of action temporarily jamming it in training.
The control officer of the latter ordered all turrets to go into "After Control".
This was carried out, but, about the same time a 15" shell burst on the boat deck and seriously upset the starboard after H.A. Director.
The crew of this director had already been considerably blasted by "Y" Turret firing on a forward bearing.
The 15" shell burst threw the control officer off his feet and broke his telephone lead. By the time he was again through to the H.A.C.P. The target was lost behind smoke astern.



PoW Gunnery report :
The 5.25-in. armament opened fire at a range of 18,600 yards. After firing a deflection triple, a 15-in. shell passed through the superstructure supporting the H.A. directors.
The shot caused the director to jam temporarily in training and the Control Officer of the latter ordered all turrets to go into "aft control".
This was carried out, but about the same time a 15-in. shell burst on the boat deck and seriously upset the after starboard H.A. director.


ADM J. Tovey :
As soon as the Hood had been disposed of, the Bismarck shifted her main and secondary armament fire quickly and accurately on to the Prince of Wales.
The range was now about 18,000 yards and the Prince of Wales' starboard 5.25 inch battery had also come into action.
Within a very few minutes she was hit by four 15-in, and three smaller, probably 8-in. shells; her compass platform was damaged and most of the people on it killed or wounded; both forward H.A. Directors and the starboard after one were out of action; one four-gunned turret had jammed and the ship was holed underwater aft.
What can be easily realized ?

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 )
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,


again Capt J.C. Leach from his June 4th, 1941 narrative :
The 5.25" opened fire at a range of 18,000 yards but only fired 3 salvos.


http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... #P391Leach

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 )
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,


again Capt J.C. Leach from his June 4th, 1941 narrative :
The 5.25" opened fire at a range of 18,000 yards but only fired 3 salvos.


http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... #P391Leach

Bye Antonio :D
We know the open fire time was ~0557:30. The normal salvo rate for surface firing was about 4-6 salvos/minute. This places the timing of the hit around ~0558:30-0559.

If you carefully read the damage description you'll note that there is no entry hole as per the the compass platform hit! This means that it would be very difficult to determine the exact bearing of the shell prior to striking the roof of the Admiral's Charthouse. Therefore I don't think we can place too much weight on the incoming bearing as estimated by the drawing in IMG_6304.JPG. This 3D view of KGV shows why there's no entry hole:

http://www.prdobson.com/images/projects ... 910841.jpg

The damage assessors knew that the shell was deflected upon striking the roof the charthouse, and thus they had no way to determine the exact angle of fall or the exact bearing from whence it came, since by the time it struck a bulkhead it was already moving in a different direction from it's original path.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Dunmunro:
Hi Duncan, thanks for posting the 3D image of KGV, that makes clear how the damage assessors were able to determine the bearing from which the shell penetrated the support structure of the HACS fore directors.

In the damage report you will see that the roof of the charthouse was hit in "the port forward corner" (maximum depression of the roof). This means that the angle of entry through the hole in the support structure was very narrow to allow the shell to reach the port forward corner (please see here the sentence).
PoW_hit_nr2_01.jpg
PoW_hit_nr2_01.jpg (119.31 KiB) Viewed 4090 times
This is why they determined the shell trajectory before hitting the roof as per below scheme.
IMG_6304.JPG
IMG_6304.JPG (105.22 KiB) Viewed 4090 times
Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by wadinga »

Hello All,

How long did Lutjens take to decide to engage the British force after they opened fire? How long after PE engaged the leading ship due to no distribution of fire signal from the flagship, did it take to decide to switch her fire to PoW? Yet in 8 seconds, ie before some of Hood's explosion debris has hit the water, Lutjens has decided to switch targets and the order has been transmitted to those who target the guns. (8 secs out of 16 is a guess :wink: )

Not "plenty of time" at all given actual performance by the Bismarck's target designation team.

Alberto, thanks for putting up more original information from the dockyard report for our use :clap: :clap: :clap: . It confirms the account in Tarrant's KGV Battleships that the second independent plotting centre of PoW's movements also had its "contents destroyed" so that no original plot of PoW's movements exists at all, and we are entirely dependent Rowell and Leach's memories of what happened shortly before they were blown up.

Here is yet another witness to the turn to conform by PoW: taking her off 280T degrees- The Baron! :shock:
The PoW , which in obedience to Admiral Holland's last command, was turning 20 degrees to port when the Hood blew up, had to change direction to avoid the wreckage of her vanished leader.
Surely not another direct eye witness remembering things written in a book written by somebody who wasn't there, instead of what they actually saw. All this witness information makes it clear Rowell's map is in error in not showing the first turn to port, at all.

PS In regard to this whole accelerated timetable business. From the Admiralty Manual of Seamanship. 1932
The Repulse's advance and tactical diameter are however, 885 and 960 yards respectively
That is to say after the order to turn at maximum helm is given the smaller, shorter Repulse takes 885 yards of travel at 20 knots (standard speed) before the ship starts to turn at all. How long after Hood's 06:00:10 explosion would PoW start to turn to starboard at all assuming Leach also took 8 seconds to realise the awful trth about Hood?

All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by Bill Jurens »

Wadinga wrote:
"From the Admiralty Manual of Seamanship. 1932

The Repulse's advance and tactical diameter are however, 885 and 960 yards respectively

That is to say after the order to turn at maximum helm is given the smaller, shorter Repulse takes 885 yards of travel at 20 knots (standard speed) before the ship starts to turn at all.

The advance is the distance covered before the ship has completed a ninety-degree turn to port or starboard, not the distance '...before the ship starts to turn at all". The tactical diameter is a little less carefully defined; it's usually taken as the total distance across the circle after the ship has turned through 180 degrees, sometimes taken when the ship completes her first full 360 degree turn, and sometimes taken as the diameter of the stable circle that results if the ship turns continuously -- say through 720 degrees or more. The difference in tactical diameters measured in these ways is usually rather small, which is why the term remains a bit ambiguous unless carefully defined. There are often small ambiguities in precisely how the turning characteristics are measured, as some feel measurements should properly begin when the rudder has reached its final position, whilst others -- the majority -- feel that measurements should begin at the instant when the helm is put over.

The situation varies a bit from ship to ship, but hydrodynamic effects mean that most ships bodily move a small distance -- half a beam width or so -- transversely 'in the wrong direction' when the rudder is put hard over at high speed. (Usually, during this brief period, they heel in wrong direction, too.) This 'reverse action is usually completed in perhaps one third of a ship-length along the track.

Bill Jurens
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by wadinga »

All,-

A minor correction- PoW was shorter than Repulse, but her tactical diameter was stated much the same 930 yds (Conways Battleships). It is a reasonable assumption her advance would have been about the same. Does anybody have actual trials turning performance for the KGVs?

28 knots is 15.75 yds per second, so 885 yds travelled is 55 seconds assuming that extra speed does not reduce the advance distance or tactical diameter. PoW doesn't start turning away from Hood to starboard until after 06:01 and yet it is still claimed she is turning away from Bismarck at 06:01:30. There just isn't enough time!

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by wadinga »

Hi All,

:oops:

The advance includes half the tactical diameter, so instead of
28 knots is 15.75 yds per second, so 885 yds travelled is 55 seconds assuming that extra speed does not reduce the advance distance or tactical diameter. PoW doesn't start turning away from Hood to starboard until after 06:01 and yet it is still claimed she is turning away from Bismarck at 06:01:30. There just isn't enough time!
We have 885 - (half of 930) = 420 yards before they actually start turning or 26 seconds.
All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

in summary :

... we have the HMS Prince of Wales Capt J.C. Leach telling us he did not turn to port before turning to starboard and avoid Hood wreckage, ...

... we have the PoW Navigating Officer G. W. Rowell telling us he did not turn to port before the avoidance manoeuvre to starboard to avoid the Hood wreckage ...

... we have the Signalman, Petty Officer Ronald Sheridan Howell, on port side of PoW waiting to execute that turn signal from Hood that was never received ...

... we have photo and film evidence showing us how fast everything happened, were PoW was at 06.00 and 10 seconds ( photo Nh 69724 ) and were she was at 06.03 and 30 seconds ( photo Nh 69731 ) ...

... we have the PoW gunnery report telling us PoW never lost the aft Y turret enemy bearing possibility she had since salvo 9 ...

... and you still want to sustain your theory that PoW turned to port before turning to starboard because the Baron wrote it into a book :shock: ... while he quickly looked at Hood sinking taking that quick view time out of his primary duty to control carefully Norfolk and Suffolk ... :think:

Good luck my friend ... I stay with my evidences, ... :wink:

By the way, the thread is about the second hit and when ... and mostly from where and by whom it was received.

So far we have the confirmation that Capt J.C. Leach was not so precise and reliable, ... just like someone else and himself too on other occasions, ... once again also in this case ...

... everything brings only to one conclusion here ... more and more as we analyze the real events and the official documentation ... and we are not done yet.

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 )
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck second hit on PoW : HACS Director

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Wadinga wrote: "Alberto, thanks for putting up more original information from the dockyard report for our use :clap: :clap: :clap: . It confirms the account in Tarrant's KGV Battleships that the second independent plotting centre of PoW's movements also had its "contents destroyed" so that no original plot of PoW's movements exists at all, and we are entirely dependent Rowell and Leach's memories of what happened shortly before they were blown up."
Hi Sean, you are welcome !
However there are many other independent chart houses in PoW tower. You can see them in the original PoW plans: one is just behind the Conning Tower and one is on the Admiral Bridge (Admiral Charthouse in the aft part of the bridge), plus there is the plotting office just below the compass platform and just behind the admiral sheltered look-out). Please ignore lines and colours (I don't have anymore the original scans)......
DSCN7289A - Copy.jpg
DSCN7289A - Copy.jpg (247.95 KiB) Viewed 3992 times
I don't know which charthouse is used and which is not during a battle, the fact that in the Captain charthouse (the one damaged by the hit n.2) there were no casualties (at least we are not aware of them....) despite the roof and the bulkhead were perforated, seems to point out that this charthouse was not in use, probably because the Captain was in Compass.

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon May 19, 2014 2:29 pm, edited 5 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
Post Reply