KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

[HMSVF]

Apologies for naivety (in advance)

But are the photographs timed?

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nislsson wrote: "IMHO just 9."

Hi Marc,
I have counted at least 11, as per Antonio's metronomic reconstruction in this table (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 300#p68607).
If you want to re-open this discussion, there is a dedicated thread where we can move to: "Bismarck firing procedures at DS (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752) to discuss Antonio's count of salvos (supported by associated photos / film frame as per the table).


Any alternative proposed with explanations is acceptable of course, but saying that:

"the last six minutes of which probably saw hardly any firing at all"

is just an impotent denial attempt.
BTW, on the same thread above the same denier proposed the use of totally incorrect battlemaps and was ridiculed already (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 195#p68342): I strongly suggest to everybody to read this thread again to have a laugh, even if I have to thank him for correcting my poor English: lackey is the right definition for a poorly educated guy recently coming in here only to insult and to support loosers position, without any added value to the discussion.



Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

If you want to re-open this discussion, there is a dedicated thread where we can move to:

If you want to continue to pretend Bismarck's output was as poor as PoW's why not reactivate BS firing procedures where your former conspirator found he couldn't accept your dogma any longer?

I suggested this, as above, on page 6 some time ago. The problem has been you constantly wanting to repost your Tedious Table, full of fabricated statistics for Bismarck in an attempt to belittle Leach's problems.

Santarini says on 41:

If the ratio between the theoretically and the actually fired shells is considered as a rough efficiency indicator of the Prince of Wales 356/45 guns, it is possible to quantify (on the basis of the outcome of the battle):

Efficiency= 55 shells/ (18 salvoes * 6 theoretical shells until 06:02) = 50.9%

Perhaps you would care to explain what this means to this mathematical dunce?


I posted:

Since the time of flight, plus a few seconds for spotting corrections is applied, is the standard interval between salvoes and the former came down rapidly during the engagement, there is, astonishingly, considering McMullen's assurance, no improvement detectable in PoW's rate of firing. Only at one point only, the 06:00 minute, does one group of her guns get the reload and ready time down to about 45 seconds. Taking half as long again as it is supposed to, and resulting in guns in the group missing the salvo, because they are not ready, like the others.

According to Duncan's table the straddle and assumed first hit by PoW was fired at about 05:55:55 by A2, A4 and B2. The same guns still take a whole minute before they fire again at about 05:56:55 despite this success and time of flight of about 32 seconds. Why wait for another 30 secs? Because the guns are not ready.

The table showing PoW gun performance should have estimated firing times to the second from the salvo plot, actual fall of shot to the second at the range, a theoretical 30 second reload time from shot time and the difference between previous fall of shot time for that group and the current shot. This is the real measurement of efficiency, whether practice and drill and faultless machinery allow a shot to be fired as soon as corrections from the previous one are available. Of course if one is struggling with flooding in the turrets, a green crew and faulty machinery firing will be delayed.


Guns Y2 and Y3 suffer fail to fire on salvoes 14 through 18. Y2 is jammed flash doors as explained, maybe misses 12 as well. Any report on what is wrong with Y3?

"The guns are fine" McMullen.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "The problem has been you constantly wanting to repost your Tedious Table, full of fabricated statistics for Bismarck"

If we want to discuss the exact number of salvos fired by Bismarck we should move to the correct thread, where ALL these things have been discussed already !
I already said that the only assumption in the table is 108. The reason why I will continue to re-post the very ANNOYING (not tedious) Table and the most IRRITATING facts (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =90#p79686) is that Mr.Wadinga doesn't want to admit that the "effective" figures ARE NOT significantly influenced by the ordered shots, therefore by the salvos fired....

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg (70.88 KiB) Viewed 2317 times

Mr.Dunmunro, being a little bit more clever and knowledgeable than him, had understood that the only way to change the FACT that Bismarck gunnery was effectively slower than PoW was to try to challenge the 93 shells actually fired, or the duration of Bismarck fire denying the 6:09, and got ridiculed in both cases ! (but being a bit wiser, at least he did not insist in these speculations, while Mr.Wadinga seems to insist that the film was turned before 6:03..... ).

I'm still waiting for Mr.Wadinga educated guess for the ordered shots number: when I will have it, I can show to him too that almost NOTHING change to the "effective salvo per minute" and to the "effective # shells fired per minute", that are the only key parameters when judging the gunnery. Being neither wise nor knowledgeable, I think he is reluctant only because he got rubbished already too many times in this discussion and he senses that he has NO WAY OUT.....

Wadinga wrote: "The same guns still take a whole minute before they fire again.....Why wait for another 30 secs? Because the guns are not ready"

NO ! Because, due to the exceptionally fast closing rate, McMullen needed to spot correctly the fall of shells and then to apply corrections before firing the next salvo (as it was the case for Schneider).
Why KGV waited 1 minute and half (or another full minute) before firing the same gun on May 27 ? Because the guns are not ready ?

The same did Bismarck, that never really applied "good rapid" methodology (except when firing her gabelgruppe at the beginning of the engagement, and , possibly, after 6:03). However, having only fired 93 shells in 14 minutes, her apparent RoF was even worse than PoW.



I really don't understand why Mr.Wadinga insists to make a fool of himself in this way in the vain attempt to defend the supposed honor of a IMO clearly timid officer.....



Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Brook states there was only 3 further salvos from Bismarck after ~602. The Baron remains silent on the issue.

[Alberto Virtuani]

....however the film + the photos (that are surely more reliable than any witnesses) demonstrate exactly the opposite: several salvos also after 6:03 (possibly, all of them falling far from PoW, as gunnery precision had been lost due to PoW hard turn under smoke and Bismarck own turns).

Also PG continued to fire "quickly" after 6:04 (her own turn), until Lutjens ordered to cease fire at 6:09, as per Jasper GAR (http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/pg-ktb.zip). Why should have Schneider done differently, seeing his "prey" running away ?


Be, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

with those guys it is really useless to spend our time Alberto.

They totally miss basic knowledge of the events as well as the official photograpic and video material about this battle.

Poor Winklareth not being able to ut it togheter pretended to reverse the Bismarck photos, ... Vic Dale wanted to imagine not existing events, ... those guys now try to delete or avoid to consider what we have and very well know.

Again, it is a pure waste of time, ... trust me.

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

....however the film + the photos (that are surely more reliable than any witnesses) demonstrate exactly the opposite: several salvos also after 6:03 (possibly, all of them falling far from PoW, as gunnery precision had been lost due to PoW hard turn under smoke and Bismarck own turns).

Also PG continued to fire "quickly" after 6:04 (her own turn), until Lutjens ordered to cease fire at 6:09, as per Jasper GAR (http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/pg-ktb.zip). Why should have Schneider done differently, seeing his "prey" running away ?


Be, Alberto

PE fired for ~14 mins and Jasper states 27.5 seconds average (or maximum?) salvo rate. This gives us about 33 possible salvos (if we allow up to 15mins).

This tells us that PE was firing well under her maximum RoF and she was probably trying to avoid having her shells land simultaneous with Bismarck's and that from 0555-0602 her salvo RoF was approximately the same as Bismarck's but she was also mixing 4 and 8 guns salvos.

we can say confidently that from 0553 to 0602 that Bismarck was firing at approximately the same salvo rate as PE but that after 0602 Bismarck's salvo rate fell off considerably because if it didn't she would have fired about the same number of rounds as PE.

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

....however the film + the photos (that are surely more reliable than any witnesses)

You mean your interpretation of a film which shows Bismarck firing more rapidly that one round per gun per minute but which you pretend doesn't, is more reliable than the observations of people who were there???

Also PG continued to fire "quickly" after 6:04 (her own turn), until Lutjens ordered to cease fire at 6:09, as per Jasper GAR

Nowhere does Jasper say PG fired "quickly" (in the English translation) that is a made-up "FACT". What he says is that firing continued during turns but was disrupted.

The battery was twice temporarily and laterally displaced from the target during this evolution.

Jasper says he received the order not to shoot over Bismarck from "ship's command", nothing mentioning Bismarck, orders from Lutjens or whether Bismarck stopped shooting, coincidentally, at the same time, or even earlier.

PG's manoeuvres made it impossible to keep any guns on target at certain times, why would Bismarck's violent turns make it any easier for her? If PG'S shooting was temporarily disrupted, why wouldn't Bismarck's be? PoW's certainly was, she ceased fire until her course stabilised somewhat and Y turret loosed off its local control rounds.

The only factual information in the Bismarck line of the tedious Table is "93" rounds total and even that might include rounds unloaded through the muzzle to avoid them "cooking off" in the barrels.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "your interpretation of a film...is more reliable than the observations of people who were there???"

Of course a film is a proof much more than the witness of people confused and under fire..... My interpretation is based on the ONLY available credible reconstruction of the battle (Bismarck turning to 270° course at 6:03): Mr.Wadinga has never presented here his theory about Germans tracks: please post it and we will further laugh together at him !
Also he has never dared to present his theory about the ordered shots of Bismarck (my 108, or Mr.Dunmunro 96), the ONLY assumption in the "Annoying Table", not affecting the "effective" performance of Bismarck vs PoW.....

Wadinga wrote: "Nowhere does Jasper say PG fired "quickly"

Mr.Wadinga is right, he says "RAPID" in his GAR from the PG KTB (http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/pg-ktb.zip).....
Such intentional lies are unbearable and reveal the only intent of these deniers: contradict everything just to justify Leach......
PG fired "rapid" in the second part of the battle, despite she was turning more than Bismarck, as logical seeing her opponent running away under smoke. Schneider did the same until Lutjens decided to stop wasting ammunition at 6:09.

Jasper_Albrecht_RAPID_FIRE.jpg (28.58 KiB) Viewed 2191 times

Wadinga wrote: "he only factual information in the Bismarck line of the tedious Table is "93" rounds total and even that might include rounds unloaded through the muzzle"

...and if this is the case, it would make Bismarck figures even worse compared to PoW....Please try in the "Annoying Table" (if able)....
Mr.Wadinga insists to speak about gunnery without understanding the "elementary school calculations", making the discussion extremely funny for me.....



Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "PE was firing well under her maximum RoF....we can say confidently that from 0553 to 0602 that Bismarck was firing at approximately the same salvo rate as PE "

As well as Bismarck and PoW, ALL SHIPS (including what he can imagine about Hood based on witnesses like Schmalenbach) were firing well below their theoretical maximum RoF, albeit quite quickly for a real-life short engagement with complex geometry (around half this RoF for all of them, please see the "annoying table" below).
PG is no exception...
The second statement is pure speculation, based on nothing. Bismarck fired in average 2 semi-salvos per minute with no great variations between before and after 6:02: who says the opposite ? No witness stating this..... Film+photos demonstrating what I say, with a lot of salvos fired after 6:03....

Please stop inventing things with the only intent to defend Leach and diminish PoW gunnery "irritating facts" (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =90#p79686) !

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg (70.88 KiB) Viewed 2183 times

Bye, Alberto

[pgollin]

.

A & A ;

1: You admit that the film does not cover the whole period, and indeed may not even be contiguous - therefore relying on it for absolute proof is pointless.

2: Your idea of a SINGLE rate of fire for Bismarck is rather meaningless, rather like having a rate of fire for PoW covering the whole period of her three engagements - its a figure, but it is of no worth.

3: YET AGAIN, "the guns are O.K." does NOT mean what you seem to think it means, it does NOT overrule any previous reports to the bridge.

4: "Guns available for firing" IS NOT THE SAME AS guns "ordered to be fired" - this shows a total ignorance of firing procedures.

5: Your figures ignore "Firing in Concentration", but that merely shows more of your ignorance.

As with the other thread you are embarrassing yourselves.

.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

1) The film (6:03 to 6:05) shows 6 semi-salvos + photos (taken from 6:05 to 6:09) show other 5 semi-salvos. Therefore the RoF of Bismarck did not diminish notably after 6:03.

2) The idea of Bismarck RoF varying significantly is totally UNSUPPORTED (but it can help the "deniers" agenda to justify Leach....

3) "tell the Captain everything is going fine" said by a G.O. to his Captain through a "boy" means what it means... an hooligan rant will not change the fact.

4) McMullen report is available here (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm). If this arrogant person doesn't understand and needs explanations about how it should be read, he can ask his "leading denier" Mr.Dunmunro who has studied (and understood correctly) it much before we did, and get what his ignorance deserves.

5) Fire for concentration (or any methodology) is irrelevant to measure the "effective RoF" of PoW (and could have only actually slowed it).



Regarding "embarrassment", this insolent person should be very careful after his recent failures here.... but apparently his hooligan "ego" is still strong enough to come in and to be rubbished once again.



Bye, Alberto

[pgollin]

.

As a non-responsive post, that is fine.

You REALLY have to learn that if you want respect you need to at least try to make some attempts at truth and relevance.

.

[Alberto Virtuani]

As a non-responsive post, the above is a masterpiece. Unable to answer, as usual, not knowing what he is speaking about.