Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2695
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:33 pm

Cag wrote: "...PoW should have had a higher RoF (1,8959 to 1,7857)......facts are that PoW had a 25% loss rate and Bismarck had a 10% loss rate (Salvo rate 1,60 to 1,41).....Is not 25% always in every universe larger than 10%......,"
Hi Mr. Cag,
yes, that's all true, and it is not my intention to "promote" a theory as well as I'm sure you don't try to read the numbers in a "defensive" way....
However, combining the effective RoF (1,60 and 1,41) that already discount the different output losses, I just calculated the effective number of shells per minute, and (due to PoW having 2 more guns) this gives the 2 figures (7,04 shells per minute for PoW and 6,38 for BS) that represent the average shell output of the two ships, when turrets are not wooded.

I do agree with you that, due only to the intercept geometry, the actual output in terms of shells was favorable to BS, but if you want to compare the pure gunnery performances of the two ships you cannot take into account the output loss due to aft turrets not bearing.

As, always respectful of your opinion,
Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Steve Crandell » Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:37 pm

cag,

If you would use paragraphs it would help a lot for me to follow your comments. It's very hard on my eyes without them.

With respect to the comment by someone else about how the Germans fired salvos, I submit the following:

1. In the Bismarck film you will not see both turret groups firing at the same time, as you would if they used half the guns in each turret.

2. I have never seen a photo of a German heavy ship with half the guns in all turrets at loading angle and half elevated, and there are lots of them of British ships like that. Occasionally you will see one gun out of three at loading angle, and I surmise that is because there was or is a problem with that gun and it has missed a salvo.

3. I know I have read that the Germans fired all guns in a turret group at a time. I can't find the source.

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Cag » Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:09 pm

Hi All,
Thank you Mr Crandell I will try I'm still new to this! And thank you for your help it's most appreciated!

Thank you also Alberto, I do honestly respect your, and Antonio's, opinion but feel that this avenue of debate won't help your cause which I don't want to see happen.

If I were to say ship A fires 13 full salvos and ship B fires 9 full salvos and that ship A uses all turrets and ship B does not use 1/3rd of its armament for the first four salvos, would you assume ship A has a higher output? If I then add that ship A has a 10% loss in the number of guns and ship B has a 25% loss would you then assume that ship B has a lower output?

I agree that PoW has a higher RoF thanks due to how the British used their guns in salvo firing, which must be taken into account, and I agree that all crews did well despite their problems and would not want to lessen the achievement of the crews of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen or denegrate them in any way. It does seem, at times, though that the crew of PoW are not afforded the same respect and significant factors in their 'defence' are not recognised.

Very much in respect,
Best wishes,
Cag.

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Steve Crandell » Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:40 pm

Much better, thank you cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2695
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:48 am

Cag wrote: "If I were to say ship A fires 13 full salvos and ship B fires 9 full salvos and that ship A uses all turrets and ship B does not use 1/3rd of its armament for the first four salvos, would you assume ship A has a higher output? If I then add that ship A has a 10% loss in the number of guns and ship B has a 25% loss would you then assume that ship B has a lower output?
I agree that PoW has a higher RoF thanks due to how the British used their guns in salvo firing, which must be taken into account,....."
Hi Mr. Cag,
yes I agree with all the above, including PoW having an average RoF better than Bismarck. I don't fully understand your comment on the reason why this happens: I don't expect RoF to change dramatically due to the usage of guns done by British, as the fact of firing salvos or broadsides doesn't change the re-load interval to have the same gun ready to fire again....... Could you please explain what you mean here ?


I do agree that BS fired in 14 minutes more shells than PoW in 9.
I do agree that the actual output of BS (89%) was better than PoW (74%).
Do you agree that the "effective" RoF (defined as per PoW GAR) is favorable to BS due to the loss of output ?
Do you agree that this figure is independent from how many turrets are firing due to battle geometry, that is not a factor that should be taken into account analysing the pure gunnery performance in term of RoF ?
Do you agree that the effective number of shells that PoW could fire with all turrets bearing was 7,04, better than BS (6,38), due to her larger number of guns ?

I will now add another figure to my table with the effective shell weight per minute (last column) to show that I don't want to hide any factor that can be unfavorable to my "prosecution side", as someone is trying to say, as this gives a marginal advantage to BS due to the 15" vs 14" shell . It's a matter of analysing the historical facts using statistic.
PoW_vs_Bismarck_firing-2.jpg
PoW_vs_Bismarck_firing-2.jpg (35.78 KiB) Viewed 904 times
I hope we can now, finally, be in agreement on the "statistical" analysis.
Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Cag » Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:51 am

Hi All,
Thank you Alberto, I will explain. I do agree the 'effective' rate of fire was higher, but this can not be used as a 'stand alone figure', as you are doing, you yourself agreed that output is as important, but you seem to have conveniently dismissed it and rely solely on the 'rate' and not the output and the two cannot be seperated.

I do agree that due to battle geometry turrets are wooded, and WHEN all turrets are bearing the effective shell per minute figure is higher. But, and it is a big but, you once again use it as a 'stand alone figure' of effective shells per minute and now effective shell weight, and although taking into account the 25% loss, it is then conveniently 'added' back in by assuming five guns per salvo in EVERY salvo i.e. 1,41 x 5 = 7,05 at ALL times, wouldn't this 'stand alone figure' seem to suggest 18 x 5 = 90 ordered firings? Would you consider that this is, to put it mildly, distorting the figures for the prosecution and not taking into account 'significant historical factors' ?

What I am, seemingly vainly, trying to show is that we have to be fair and apply the same rules to each side, why this is not being done I am unsure. I have tried, and still try, to be fair to both arguments, but cannot understand the 'principle' of these arguments.

If it is to prove an opinion to me, then it is a waste of time as that opinion is already accepted.

If it is to impose an opinion, then I would rather play no further part.

If there is another reason, perhaps the release of a published article of the definative account of the battle, then to be considered definative that account has to be fair and take into account the 'significant historical factors' on ALL sides.

As always with respect
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2695
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:19 am

Hi Mr. Cag,
always very respectfully, we can agree that we disagree on the statistical analysis results and we can both live with our own different opinions here.

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

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by alecsandros » Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:57 am

Cag wrote:

I do agree that due to battle geometry turrets are wooded, and WHEN all turrets are bearing the effective shell per minute figure is higher. But, and it is a big but, you once again use it as a 'stand alone figure' of effective shells per minute and now effective shell weight, and although taking into account the 25% loss, it is then conveniently 'added' back in by assuming five guns per salvo in EVERY salvo i.e. 1,41 x 5 = 7,05 at ALL times, wouldn't this 'stand alone figure' seem to suggest 18 x 5 = 90 ordered firings? Would you consider that this is, to put it mildly, distorting the figures for the prosecution and not taking into account 'significant historical factors' ?

What I am, seemingly vainly, trying to show is that we have to be fair and apply the same rules to each side, why this is not being done I am unsure. I have tried, and still try, to be fair to both arguments, but cannot understand the 'principle' of these arguments.

If it is to prove an opinion to me, then it is a waste of time as that opinion is already accepted.
... I think Alberto is right (allthough the effective shells per minute column could be improved)

Prince of WAles fired on director control for 9 minutes, outputing 55 shells, or 6.11 shells per minute.
Bismarck fired in the same conditions for 14 minutes, a total of 93 shells, or 6.64 shells per minute.

So ships very very close... Allthough Prince of Wales had the aft turret wooded for about 6 minutes... With it bearing on target, her real output would probably be higher than Bismarck's :shock:

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Steve Crandell » Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:43 pm

Obviously number of shells fired is not an adequate comparison of effect on a given target. Otherwise the USN would not have built the Colorado class with 8 x 16" and considered it a significant improvement in firepower over the previous class with 12 x 14".

Bismarck's guns had much higher muzzle energy than those of PoW. If you want to compare relative firepower I think that would be a better measure.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2695
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Feb 15, 2016 5:08 pm

@Steve Crandell:
Hi Steve,
I agree and my table is obviously just a simplification. I will try and get back with your suggested measure, that is anyway important at distances where penetration is the most relevant factor. At around 12-13 km distance, I doubt energy would do a great difference in terms of penetration. I suspect that both belts (PoW and BS) would be penetrated (BS however had her slope+deck , so her vitals were protected, I suspect even at 0 km distance, Alecsandros is the expert here)..... Of course all the rest of both ships was vulnerable and energy would not affect much the result damage.

Another important parameter is the weight of explosive charge delivered per minute..... :wink:

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

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by alecsandros » Mon Feb 15, 2016 6:28 pm

@Steve

This is not an attempt to equate Bismarck's 380mm/L52 with Prince of Wales 356/L45.

This is an analysis of rate of fire and it shows incomplete, teeth troubled Prince of Wales fired more shots per available gun per minute than peak efficiency Bismarck did :shock:

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Steve Crandell » Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:17 pm

OK, thanks guys. If we are only looking at firing efficiency then it all makes sense.

And yes, explosive power is an important measurement as well, but there are all kinds of sacrifices. If you have a lot of explosive filler, you must also have thin walls. And so on. All of these various things effect the end result.

Another important factor is the range at which the turrets and barbettes become vulnerable to the other side's guns. That is probably a completely different aspect of the battle. We have in any case completely digressed from the original topic.

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Cag » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:36 pm

Hi All,
Thank you Alberto I fully agree that we will have to agree to disagree. I do not doubt the figures in your table, its just the 'cherry picking' of ones in isolation, and without qualifying them that I'm uncomfortable with, and which then forces me to 'defend' against. Thank you all for having allowed me to contribute,
Best wishes
Cag.

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Cag » Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:59 am

Hi All,
Hi Alberto, Antonio and Alecsandros just a final post from me.

Would it have been better to have averaged out the Guns per Salvo figure to represent the whole of the 26/18 salvos from Bismarck/PoW (E.g. 4,0 for Bismarck 26 x 4 and 4,1 for PoW 8 x 3 + 10 x 5) which would have represented the whole time more precisely?


Once again many thanks for allowing me to contribute to the conversation,
Best wishes,
Cag.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4152
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by alecsandros » Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:17 am

Mr Cag,
As far as I can understand the numbers, Bismarck used 8 guns for 93 shells fired in 14 minutes, or 0.830 shots per minute per gun.
Prince of Wales used 6 guns in the first 6 minutes, and 10 guns for the following 3 minutes (average 7.333 guns available to fire per minute), to fire a total of 55 shots, or 0.833 shots per minute per gun available to fire.

Practically the same effective output per gun per minute of firing as Bismarck had... :think:

Post Reply