IWM Interview - Rodney's Gunnery Officer

[paulcadogan]

Another IWM find..

William G. Crawford - Rodney's gunnery officer during the Bismarck action!

Very interesting indeed...

When asked what he thought of Rodney's chances in a one on one with Bismarck he answered. "I think we'd have done very well!" (Or something like that) His main concern was that Bismarck had radar directed gunnery capabilities while Rodney at the time did not.

He also commented on the conditions during the battle - he, similarly to McMullen on PoW days earlier, could not get ANY good optical ranges and he opened fire on a "guesstimate" and was out for line with his first two salvos, then found line with the third. He was a bit confused as to which salvo scored the first hit that knocked out Bismarck's forward turrets, he thought it was his third, but admitted it could have been later (as we know it was).

He also mentions watching through his binoculars and seeing three shells from Rodney going towards Bismarck, while two shells from Bismarck were streaking in the opposite direction - he saw them pass each other in mid flight.

He also complained about the quality of the British 16-inch shells. He said the AP shells could be set to delay or non-delay - and he was firing the former. He got a report from KGV when the two were widely separated, that Rodney's shells were passing straight through Bismarck and exploding when they emerged on the other side. He then set the shells to non-delay thereafter. He felt that if the shells had been functioning properly Bismarck should have been blown up despite her armour!

He tells a story I have not heard or read anywhere else - that one of the cruisers accidentally fired on Rodney - he was not sure which one it was, but thought it was Norfolk! The shells fortunately fell short and a curt signal from Rodney put an end to the error.

Most of the discussion of the Bismarck battle is on reel 2. http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80010451

Enjoy!

[Alberto Virtuani]

Another very interesting recording ! Thanks Paul

Paul Cadogan wrote, regarding William G. Crawford - Rodney's gunnery officer that: "He felt that if the shells had been functioning properly, Bismarck should have been blown up despite her armour!"

I don't think that even at 4000 yards the 16" shells could penetrate the belt and the sloped deck TWICE passing through the vitals and exploding outside the ship as observed from KGV.
I think that the effect of the shells passing through was just because they were piercing the BS lightly armoured superstructures with flat trajectories. Of course the explosion inside the ship would have anyway caused much more damage and fires (and Crawford was correctly zeroing the fuse delay) but I don't believe they could in any case reach the magazines (the splinters after the shell explosion should have pierced the armoured deck to reach them...... )

I guess that the only real chance to reach BS magazines for Rodney's 16" shells was either 1) to engage her at long distance, with 16" shells plunging on BS decks at a very high angle, outside her immunity zone, or (possibly) 2) hitting her almost directly from her bow direction and piercing the longitudinal armoured bulkhead that limited the citadel (180 to 220 mm thick), reaching the A turret magazine.
In the May 27 engagement, the second scenario was indeed possible as Rodney was quite often in front of the BS. However BS was already very low by the bows due to the PoW hit on May 24 and even this option to reach the magazines was not therefore very easy to achieve (because the bulkhead and the magazines were basically under the waterline and the 16" trajectories were almost flat).

Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Alberto Virtuani wrote: "......piercing the longitudinal armoured bulkhead......."

My mistake, I meant the transverse bulkhead of course......

Bye, Alberto

[paulcadogan]

Agreed absolutely Alberto - precisely what I was thinking, and I wondered how come Crawford didn't figure that out. He of all people should have understood what was happening at such close range.

The only times that KGV was on the opposite side of Bismarck relative to Rodney ( in order to see the penetration effect) was in the late stages when Rodney was steaming back and forth ahead of Bismarck - so she was at pretty close range. In effect, all the non-delay shells did was to increase the already horrendous topside carnage!

[Steve Crandell]

I want to know how anyone on KGV could tell that a shell from Rodney had passed through any part of Bismarck.

[dunmunro]

I want to know how anyone on KGV could tell that a shell from Rodney had passed through any part of Bismarck.

If they were in a position to observe Bismarck's unengaged side (relative to Rodney), they could probably see if a shell passed through the superstructure. OTOH, if you examine the photo-realistic drawings of the Bismarck wreck in Ballard's book (The Discovery of the Bismarck, p.193 and 209), you can see evidence of a shell that might have passed through a barbette, but Bill Jurens has stated that the drawings are probably incorrect (IIRC).

Setting the shells to non-delay ensured that Bismarck's magazines were kept safe, so IMHO it was a mistake.

[dunmunro]

Another IWM find..

William G. Crawford - Rodney's gunnery officer during the Bismarck action!


He tells a story I have not heard or read anywhere else - that one of the cruisers accidentally fired on Rodney - he was not sure which one it was, but thought it was Norfolk! The shells fortunately fell short and a curt signal from Rodney put an end to the error.

Most of the discussion of the Bismarck battle is on reel 2. http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80010451

Enjoy!

I have to take some of his comments, made 48 years after the fact with a grain of salt. If a cruiser's fire did threaten Rodney, it was more likely to have been due to "overs" fired at Bismarck rather than deliberate targeting of Rodney. At close ranges, minor errors in elevation can cause major errors in range.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dunmunro wrote: "If a cruiser's fire did threaten Rodney, it was more likely to have been due to "overs" fired at Bismarck rather than deliberate targeting of Rodney. At close ranges, minor errors in elevation can cause major errors in range."

You are absolutely right IF the range was already very short at that time.

Unfortunately Crawford doesn't mention when the cruiser fired at Rodney, and both cruisers opened fire at quite long distance on May 27 (20000 yards).
Therefore IF the range was still long, then a mistake is absolutely possible and realistic in a situation where, for sure, everybody in the RN wanted to avenge Hood and May 24.....

Bye, Alberto