Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
Moderator: Bill Jurens
 Antonio Bonomi
 Senior Member
 Posts: 3772
 Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
 Location: Vimercate ( Milano )  Italy
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
Hello everybody,
@ Herr Nilsson,
... and it is decreasing too ... on future books ...
But one thing I like to say taking this occasion in public you are giving me, ... there are many persons that do not appear on the books that are VITAL and very HIGH contributors for those books ... and I promise them that at the end of the publication ... I will make public the list of the names of the very many TOP contributors.
They truly deserve it ... since it is a GREAT TEAM ! ...and we are doing a FANTASTIC WORK ...TOP CLASS !!!
No other battleship so far does have a series of books like that ... no one ... just the Tirpitz.
Lets move on the Bismarck firing methodology.
Can you comment / describe this one :
Thanks in advance and ...
Bye Antonio
@ Herr Nilsson,
... and it is decreasing too ... on future books ...
But one thing I like to say taking this occasion in public you are giving me, ... there are many persons that do not appear on the books that are VITAL and very HIGH contributors for those books ... and I promise them that at the end of the publication ... I will make public the list of the names of the very many TOP contributors.
They truly deserve it ... since it is a GREAT TEAM ! ...and we are doing a FANTASTIC WORK ...TOP CLASS !!!
No other battleship so far does have a series of books like that ... no one ... just the Tirpitz.
Lets move on the Bismarck firing methodology.
Can you comment / describe this one :
Thanks in advance and ...
Bye Antonio
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 )
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
normally, the first full salvo was a deflection shoot since with cold barrels, the shells were not expected to fall at the calculated range. Deflection, however could be corrected by observing fall of shot. The subsequent ranging salvos were expected to fall at the proper distances they were set for.
Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

 Senior Member
 Posts: 4174
 Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
 Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
Herr Nilson,Herr Nilsson wrote:And what was your contribution?
What is the contribution of a historian in reference to the part of history that he is bringing back to life ?
 Herr Nilsson
 Senior Member
 Posts: 1291
 Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
 Location: Germany
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
An author should, at least, be able to answer which part of a book was written by him.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
Hi All,
Thanks to Alecsandros and Alberto it's nice to have an expert view! My 179 figure came from the 'Baron's book page 116 I think so my mistake thanks for the info very much appreciated! So we can say that the output of Prinz Eugen was 85.32% or a loss of 14.68% Bismarck was 89.42% or a loss of 10.58% and PoW was 74.32% or a loss of 25.68% ? Ok that makes sense and we can say that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were firing Vorzuendwerk salvos of 8 shells (Minus losses) whilst PoW was firing half the guns per salvo as per normal practice (Plus losses), which sort of means the German output was overall better?
Best wishes
Cag.
Thanks to Alecsandros and Alberto it's nice to have an expert view! My 179 figure came from the 'Baron's book page 116 I think so my mistake thanks for the info very much appreciated! So we can say that the output of Prinz Eugen was 85.32% or a loss of 14.68% Bismarck was 89.42% or a loss of 10.58% and PoW was 74.32% or a loss of 25.68% ? Ok that makes sense and we can say that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were firing Vorzuendwerk salvos of 8 shells (Minus losses) whilst PoW was firing half the guns per salvo as per normal practice (Plus losses), which sort of means the German output was overall better?
Best wishes
Cag.
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
Hi All,
Apart from Bismarck's 12th and 13th salvos in which A+B and C+D were more seperated and Prinz Eugen's 20th and 21st in which only C+D turrets fired of course.
Best wishes
Cag.
Apart from Bismarck's 12th and 13th salvos in which A+B and C+D were more seperated and Prinz Eugen's 20th and 21st in which only C+D turrets fired of course.
Best wishes
Cag.
 Herr Nilsson
 Senior Member
 Posts: 1291
 Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
 Location: Germany
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
184/8=23 ....Jasper states at least 30 salvos before firing just with C+D.Cag wrote:Hi All,
Thanks to Alecsandros and Alberto it's nice to have an expert view! My 179 figure came from the 'Baron's book page 116 I think so my mistake thanks for the info very much appreciated! So we can say that the output of Prinz Eugen was 85.32% or a loss of 14.68% Bismarck was 89.42% or a loss of 10.58% and PoW was 74.32% or a loss of 25.68% ? Ok that makes sense and we can say that Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were firing Vorzuendwerk salvos of 8 shells (Minus losses) whilst PoW was firing half the guns per salvo as per normal practice (Plus losses), which sort of means the German output was overall better?
Best wishes
Cag.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
 Alberto Virtuani
 Senior Member
 Posts: 2856
 Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
 Location: Milan (Italy)
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
Hi Mr.Cag,Cag wrote: ".....the German output was overall better?"
yes, it was by 11 points and 15 points better.
However, if you assume for BS 104 ordered to fire (to get to 89% output), then the average RoF of PoW (1.895) was better than BS (1,857), assuming (to simplify) the same salvo firing methodology (that is not the case) .....
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.WakeWalker)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.WakeWalker)
 Alberto Virtuani
 Senior Member
 Posts: 2856
 Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
 Location: Milan (Italy)
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
Hi all,
I took the PoW GAR at this link (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm) and I took the time to rework in a spreadsheet to add Bismarck figures, using the same definitions and formulas plus adding a final column with the effective shells per minute (considering all turrets bearing).
Assumptions:
1) Bismarck was firing by salvos (I mean the same firing methodology as PoW), that is not the case (but not affecting the calculation),
2) 104 shots were ordered to fire on BS (it could be either 108 or 112, or.....) and
3) 14 minutes uninterrupted fire for BS. We know she made 2 turns and possibly slowed her fire, but final figures will not dramatically change even assuming 13 minutes fire only.
This is the result:
What a surprise, PoW has a better overall shells output than Bismarck even accounting for her higher loss of output......
Bye, Alberto
I took the PoW GAR at this link (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm) and I took the time to rework in a spreadsheet to add Bismarck figures, using the same definitions and formulas plus adding a final column with the effective shells per minute (considering all turrets bearing).
Assumptions:
1) Bismarck was firing by salvos (I mean the same firing methodology as PoW), that is not the case (but not affecting the calculation),
2) 104 shots were ordered to fire on BS (it could be either 108 or 112, or.....) and
3) 14 minutes uninterrupted fire for BS. We know she made 2 turns and possibly slowed her fire, but final figures will not dramatically change even assuming 13 minutes fire only.
This is the result:
What a surprise, PoW has a better overall shells output than Bismarck even accounting for her higher loss of output......
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.WakeWalker)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.WakeWalker)

 Senior Member
 Posts: 4174
 Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
 Location: Bucharest, Romania
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
Hi All,
Thank you Herr Nilsson much appreciated. Thank you also Alberto, could you take us lesser mortals through your calculations? Especially the guns per salvo bit.
Thanks in advance,
Best wishes,
Cag.
Thank you Herr Nilsson much appreciated. Thank you also Alberto, could you take us lesser mortals through your calculations? Especially the guns per salvo bit.
Thanks in advance,
Best wishes,
Cag.
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
Hello Alecsandros,
Once again you have executed an apparent statistical coup however.................
I thought you had already accepted Bismarck fired considerably more shells than PoW per minute.
PoW fires 6 rounds in minute 53
4 in minute 54
5 in 55
5 in 56
4 in 57
7 in 58
6 in 59
11 in 00 RoF increased when they saw Hood destroyed
7 in 01
The mean is 6.1 rounds per minute and the result is obviously skewed by the 00 minute when three salvoes were fired.
Since PoW should have been firing 5 gun salvoes  none achieved, 4 gun salvoes (20% down) 5 only achieved, 3 gun salvoes (40 % down) 9 achieved, 2 gun salvoes (60% down) 4 achieved (but then Y turret wasn't bearing) .
All the best
wadinga
Once again you have executed an apparent statistical coup however.................
I thought you had already accepted Bismarck fired considerably more shells than PoW per minute.
PoW fires 6 rounds in minute 53
4 in minute 54
5 in 55
5 in 56
4 in 57
7 in 58
6 in 59
11 in 00 RoF increased when they saw Hood destroyed
7 in 01
The mean is 6.1 rounds per minute and the result is obviously skewed by the 00 minute when three salvoes were fired.
Since PoW should have been firing 5 gun salvoes  none achieved, 4 gun salvoes (20% down) 5 only achieved, 3 gun salvoes (40 % down) 9 achieved, 2 gun salvoes (60% down) 4 achieved (but then Y turret wasn't bearing) .
All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
 Alberto Virtuani
 Senior Member
 Posts: 2856
 Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
 Location: Milan (Italy)
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
Hi Mr.Cag,
I realize that my table is not so easy to interpret, starting form the fact that I forgot to post the name of the ship for each row......
Here a better (I hope) version:
I used the PoW official GAR table (see here: http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm ref. [Enclosure (I)] SUMMARY OF FORMS S.1146 (f)) and I tried first of all to understand all the PoW GAR definitions and how they calculated the different figures.
Apart from the battle duration in seconds and the figures we already discussed and mostly agreed (actual shells, salvos, guns ordered to fire), the first and most "tricky" figure is the "Salvos per minute": when I tried to divide 18 / 538 * 60 to get the same result as the PoW GAR, I got 2,0074 and not 1,8959.... This took me a while to understand, but then I realized that the formula correctly starts calculation at the 2nd salvo (thus taking into account for the first loading time). Then I tried 17 salvos (to eliminate the first shot that is already loaded) and I got 17 / 538 * 60 = 1,8959
Once understood this, I did the same for Bismarck (always assuming that she was firing using the same methodology, of course), so the semisalvos used for the calculation for BS are 25 and not 26 (assuming 13 full salvos were ordered in BS...).
Then I had to understand what is "E.F.G. salvos per minute" and I realized that this is just the 25,68% of the previous value , that is the salvo rate per minute once taken into account the loss of output (=shells fired/guns ordered to fire).
Last column is mine (it's not in the official GAR) and it is just the E.F.G. salvos per minute multiplied by the number of guns firing a "perfect" (semi)salvo (as E.F.G. is already taking into account the output loss): 5 for PoW and 4 for Bismarck. This is giving us the "effective" number of shells fired per minute, assuming all turrets could fire (not wooded).
I hope this last point answers Sean (Wadinga) post as well, as he (correctly) just calculated the average number of shells per minute (55 / 9) getting 6.1 that is the actual average output, obviously less than 7,04, as PoW was firing with her fore turrets only for a while during the battle.
However this 6,1 figure cannot be used to compare to Bismarck in any way, as BS was always firing all turrets. The last column can be used to compare apples with apples.... getting the to result that PoW rate of fire was better than BS in terms of effective shells fired per minute with all turrets bearing.....
I hope now it is more clear......
Bye, Alberto
I realize that my table is not so easy to interpret, starting form the fact that I forgot to post the name of the ship for each row......
Here a better (I hope) version:
I used the PoW official GAR table (see here: http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm ref. [Enclosure (I)] SUMMARY OF FORMS S.1146 (f)) and I tried first of all to understand all the PoW GAR definitions and how they calculated the different figures.
Apart from the battle duration in seconds and the figures we already discussed and mostly agreed (actual shells, salvos, guns ordered to fire), the first and most "tricky" figure is the "Salvos per minute": when I tried to divide 18 / 538 * 60 to get the same result as the PoW GAR, I got 2,0074 and not 1,8959.... This took me a while to understand, but then I realized that the formula correctly starts calculation at the 2nd salvo (thus taking into account for the first loading time). Then I tried 17 salvos (to eliminate the first shot that is already loaded) and I got 17 / 538 * 60 = 1,8959
Once understood this, I did the same for Bismarck (always assuming that she was firing using the same methodology, of course), so the semisalvos used for the calculation for BS are 25 and not 26 (assuming 13 full salvos were ordered in BS...).
Then I had to understand what is "E.F.G. salvos per minute" and I realized that this is just the 25,68% of the previous value , that is the salvo rate per minute once taken into account the loss of output (=shells fired/guns ordered to fire).
Last column is mine (it's not in the official GAR) and it is just the E.F.G. salvos per minute multiplied by the number of guns firing a "perfect" (semi)salvo (as E.F.G. is already taking into account the output loss): 5 for PoW and 4 for Bismarck. This is giving us the "effective" number of shells fired per minute, assuming all turrets could fire (not wooded).
I hope this last point answers Sean (Wadinga) post as well, as he (correctly) just calculated the average number of shells per minute (55 / 9) getting 6.1 that is the actual average output, obviously less than 7,04, as PoW was firing with her fore turrets only for a while during the battle.
However this 6,1 figure cannot be used to compare to Bismarck in any way, as BS was always firing all turrets. The last column can be used to compare apples with apples.... getting the to result that PoW rate of fire was better than BS in terms of effective shells fired per minute with all turrets bearing.....
I hope now it is more clear......
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.WakeWalker)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.WakeWalker)
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
Hello Alberto,
Sorry, I sometimes get you guys mixed up.
However your analysis is still fatally flawed. You have used the four gun salvoes fired only by C & D turrets after 06:03 to lower Bismarck's value over 14 minutes. If you still accept that Bismarck fired 40 shots (less 1 or 2 of the total 7 missed rounds) in the time PoW fired 27 between 05:55 and 06:00 then there is no contest. Bismarck fires more effectively.
In any case all this averaging is of no value. There is film evidence that Bismarck fired at much higher rates of fire at some times. We do not have and I suspect will never have the level of detail about Bismarck's actual firing rates that we have about PoW's. Therefore as you say at other times she must have fired more slowly. Even her total number of salvoes is a deduction from the number of shots fired (and misfires) over time.
We know from Jasper's account that he fired a full broadside (ie 8 guns) first and waited for this to fall before following with a second broadside. It is unclear how many salvoes are fired at Hood before he switches to PoW, again commencing with a full broadside. Schneider's firing regime may have been just as mixed.
All the best
wadinga
Sorry, I sometimes get you guys mixed up.
However your analysis is still fatally flawed. You have used the four gun salvoes fired only by C & D turrets after 06:03 to lower Bismarck's value over 14 minutes. If you still accept that Bismarck fired 40 shots (less 1 or 2 of the total 7 missed rounds) in the time PoW fired 27 between 05:55 and 06:00 then there is no contest. Bismarck fires more effectively.
In any case all this averaging is of no value. There is film evidence that Bismarck fired at much higher rates of fire at some times. We do not have and I suspect will never have the level of detail about Bismarck's actual firing rates that we have about PoW's. Therefore as you say at other times she must have fired more slowly. Even her total number of salvoes is a deduction from the number of shots fired (and misfires) over time.
We know from Jasper's account that he fired a full broadside (ie 8 guns) first and waited for this to fall before following with a second broadside. It is unclear how many salvoes are fired at Hood before he switches to PoW, again commencing with a full broadside. Schneider's firing regime may have been just as mixed.
All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
 Alberto Virtuani
 Senior Member
 Posts: 2856
 Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
 Location: Milan (Italy)
Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung
Hi Sean,Wadinga wrote: "You have used the four gun salvoes fired only by C & D turrets after 06:03 to lower Bismarck's value over 14 minutes"
it's you who posted (in this thread at this page: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6811&start=345) Antonio Bonomi's reconstruction of salvos fired after 6:03 with both fore and aft turrets firing.......and we see it in the PG film.....
Why on earth should Bismarck fire only C+D while all her turrets were still bearing ?
As I already asked you, if you have your own idea how Bismarck fired, please post your own complete salvo plot for her....
For the time being, the only credible figure we have for BS is that she fired 93 shells in 13 (maybe 14) full salvos, how they were split into semisalvos or other way of firing is still unclear to me.....
The comparison is based on the only proven numbers for BS and it is not "fatally flawed", as you try to say, even if I do understand that the result is a bit annoying for you.
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.WakeWalker)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.WakeWalker)