KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:05 pm Pag.50:

Santarini_pag.50_PoW_Gunnery_Performance.jpg


"...albeit with a rather low number of shots per salvo..."

Santorini's analysis of Bismarck's gunnery suffers because he has an incorrect open fire time for her and incorrect times for hits on PoW. Regardless, the fact remains that PoW's vital 14in DCTs were all vulnerable to even 10.5cm hits, and after Hood's loss she was being subjected to a hurricane of fire from 36 KM guns including 8 x 38cm, 8 x 20.3cm, 6 x 15cm and 14 x 10.5cm which had already knocked out 3 of her 4 x 5.25in HADTs and with them her 5.25in battery.

Santorini states that PoW scored 3 x 14in hits at 2 minute intervals, yet Bismarck from 0558 to 0601 scored 3 x 38cm hits on PoW and PE scored 4 x 20.3cm hits so the combined hit rate on PoW was 4 times greater (2 hits/minute) despite PoW's manoeuvres to avoid Hood, and that number would only increase if PoW maintained a steady course yet PoW's fire was severely limited by the poor functioning of her 14in battery and the entire loss of her 5.25in output. So it is unlikely that PoW could increase the rate of hitting, while the KM hit rate would increase dramatically, and within 5 minutes PoW would absorb at least 10 more hits (with 20 being more likely) while only hitting Bismarck 2 or 3 times in return, assuming her 14in FC and turrets all remained in action, which is unlikely. The outcome of a single handed, short range, action by PoW against Bismarck and PE was almost certainly going to be disastrous for PoW with little prospect of damage to Bismarck in return.

IMHO, A/A hate Leach because he cheated Lutjens of the opportunity to destroy PoW along with Hood. Consequently A/A want to convict him of cowardice, after the fact, as punishment.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:06 pm Pag. 54

Santarini_pag.54_Bismarck_Performance.jpg


:lol: :lol: :lol:


Of course the part re. PoW performance is important (but we know now very well that it was extremely good, at the level of Bismarck for RoF), as well as Adm Santarini approval of Leach decision, but the most interesting part is the explanation why British had difficulties in recognizing it and exalted Bismarck gunnery instead.... :think:

These guys are still at this (wartime) point: they need to believe that Bismarck performance was excellent and PoW was poor, but they are unable to counter the evidence about the gunnery figures. They really hate mathematics, preferring their favorite fairy-tales. :wink:



Bye, Alberto
During the interval between when Hood blew up at 0558 and PoW's 18th salvo, PoW was hit 7 times in exchange for one hit on Bismarck... No ship can expect to achieve much when trading hits at a 7-1 rate. If you want to believe that Hood blew up at 0600 then the hit rate becomes 7-0 in favour of Lutjens.

A/A "...really hate mathematics, preferring their favorite fairy-tales...".
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,


"...albeit with a rather low number of shots per salvo..."

Spot on Dunmunro :ok: Once again Alberto leaves half the information out because it detracts from his flimsy arguments.


Also if Admiral Santarini thinks a 14" gun firing once a minute in 1941 is "excellent" he needs to adjust his opinions IMHO. As the shell flight time got shorter and shorter, PoW's firing rate stayed the same , limited by the failing gun loading systems, which Santarini mentions in the very same sentence.


What he constantly emphasises is hits for shots fired, where PoW did indeed do well. But she was being smothered by a storm of fire.


After all the examples I provided previously we can also go to page 59
Numerous mechanical breakdowns affecting the PoW's 356/45 guns which heavily influenced the firing performance of the British unit, practically halving the broadside weight and curtailing the extent of the damage to Bismarck's effectiveness.

How many times does gunnery specialist Santarini have to say "numerous mechanical breakdowns" in your native language before you accept he is right and you are wrong?


He recognises the theoretical output for PoW further down the same page at 20 shots per minute but bizarrely credits Hood with only 8, (each gun once per minute). Does he think Hood's A arcs are closed and PoW's are open?

BTW 20 shots per minute means each gun fires every 30 seconds , not every 60, now that is "excellent". But then we have seen Bismarck do better at Denmark Straits in the film.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
apparently Mr.Wadinga has found the word "excellent" in Santarini's book (unable to admit his errors as usual). Good for him. :lol: :lol: :lol:

After all these deniers blah-blah, the FACT is that, until her turn away (6:01:30-6:02), PoW fired well, same as Bismarck in terms of RoF (1 shot per gun per minute) and slightly better in terms of fired shells per minute (7 vs 6,3, she was worse only for precision with "only" 3 hits vs 4 or 5). Of course after Hood explosion she lost precision, that could have been gained again, had Leach not turned 160° under smoke to disengage.... :think:


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

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
apparently Mr.Wadinga has found the word "excellent" in Santarini's book (unable to admit his errors as usual). Good for him. :lol: :lol: :lol:

After all these deniers blah-blah, the FACT is that, until her turn away (6:01:30-6:02), PoW fired well, same as Bismarck in terms of RoF (1 shot per gun per minute) and slightly better in terms of fired shells per minute (7 vs 6,3, she was worse only for precision with "only" 3 hits vs 4 or 5). Of course after Hood explosion she lost precision, that could have been gained again, had Leach not turned 160° under smoke to disengage.... :think:


Bye, Alberto
Attachments
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg (70.88 KiB) Viewed 1008 times
"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: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,
the FACT is that, until her turn away (6:01:30-6:02), PoW fired well, same as Bismarck in terms of RoF (1 shot per gun per minute) and slightly better in terms of fired shells per minute (7 vs 6,3, she was worse only for precision with "only" 3 hits vs 4 or 5).

Good Heavens! Have you been down to the Bismarck wreck and recovered her gunnery records? Your "facts" about Bismarck's rate of fire are nothing but guesswork and elementary school averaging. Chop Bismarck's duration down to more like 8 minutes with 93 shells fired and see what that does to your fantasy table.

I said I couldn't find "excellent" around p52 to 54 which is because it's on page 50, so I think my maths and English are OK. :wink:

I'm not so sure about your comprehension: you pulled "excellent" out of the sentence commencing:
It has to be noted that, in spite of the several mechanical failures dogging her brand-new 356/45 guns...........
as I pointed out. and The mechanical defects in the 356/45 guns early in the battle and In spite of the evident troubles caused by the numerous breakdowns affecting the 365/45 guns

Santarini recognizes PoW's volume of well was well below optimum because of these breakdowns, even if you would like to pretend otherwise.


All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "I said I couldn't find "excellent" around p52 to 54 which is because it's on page 50, so I think my maths and English are OK"
NO they are NOT and Mr.Wadinga is either too arrogant to simply say "I was wrong" or even able to intentionally LIE to defend his errors.
It's NOT on pag.50 only but also on pag.54. In any case I said it was at pag.50 and 54, not 52, but this guy is already famous for inventing things, making a fool of himself.

Is he able now to read the "large characters" page number and to understand from Santarini's words the reason why the British did not recognize PoW performance ? Do I need to post again pag.54 to help his difficult comprehension ? :stubborn:



Back to FACTS about Bismarck gunnery:

Bismarck fired from 5:55 till 6:09 (if Mr.Wadinga doesn't want to support the crazy theory about 5:53, that will make things worse for him)
Bismarck fired ONLY 93 shells (luckily we don't have only "British side" reports/messages).
We have photos and film showing at least 11 salvos between 6:03 and 6:09 (same as above).

Why is this guy insinuating that " "facts" about Bismarck's rate of fire are nothing but guesswork" ?

Possibly just because he is unable to calculate the same figures (through "elementary school averaging".... very, very funny said by him....) with a different assumption about Bismarck shells ordered to fire (108 is actually the only assumption here and it DOES NOT AFFECT significantly the effective number of shells fired per minute) ?
Or possibly he is even unable to understand McMullen calculations in the PoW GAR.... :kaput:

Please help him doing his homework and come back with a credible alternative to 108, else please ask him to finally shut up about PoW gunnery ! I'm really willing to laugh if someone will be so ignorant in mathematics to believe that changing the shells ordered to fire will change the effective shells fired per minute in the above calculation.... :think:
It can affect ONLY the RoF, but at the cost of getting an output loss worse than PoW one... :lol:

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg (70.88 KiB) Viewed 985 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)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:28 pm Hello everybody,


We have photos and film showing at least 11 salvos between 6:03 and 6:09 (same as above).

If each salvo was by 4 guns, that would mean that Bismarck sank Hood and hit PoW 3 times with her first ~ 50 rounds.

BTW, how many 38cm guns failed to fire in the 11 salvos shown on photos and film?
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,

finally Mr.Dunmunro (who seems to understand a bit better than Mr.Wadinga mathematics as wellas and gunnery aspects... :lol: ) asks a good question (but carefully avoids to propose an alternative to the 108 ordered shots for Bismarck because he knows well that this will change almost nothing to the discussion).
I agree that, not having a detailed Bismarck GAR, we cannot know how many and which guns were actually in action (e.g. we know on PG one fore gun was out of action after the very first salvo) nor how many shots were lost at each salvo due to normal mechanical failures, common to any battleship in the world.
Thanks to the info we have (accounts, film, photos), we can however assume a total ordered shots number of 104-112 and a consequent output loss of around 13%, but again this figure is not really relevant to the discussion because any different number than 108 in the above spreadsheet will (if higher) deteriorate Bismarck output or will (if lower) diminish her RoF compared to PoW.

Therefore the above point does not change the FACTS: PoW had an effective RoF close to Bismarck (as demonstrated mathematically, even with a better number of fired shells per minute thanks to her 10 guns vs.8 and despite her higher output loss) and her gunnery performance was "excellent" as stated also by an expert like Adm.Santarini.

Dunmunro wrote: "Bismarck sank Hood and hit PoW 3 times with her first ~ 50 rounds"
So what ? Of course after her own turn, Bismarck lost precision too.
PoW had hit Bismarck 3 times with her first ~ 37 fired rounds, before Hood exploded and the subsequent course alterations....
It looks like the deniers really don't want to accept a simple arithmetical calculation in order to justify Leach decision to turn away in front of the enemy, as Adm.Santarini clearly understood at pag.54 of his book....



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: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

You were right and I was wrong. There, happy? :D

It is on page 54, but the only excellence with regard to PoW's gunnery Santarini mentions is in accuracy, not volume or efficiency.

He says
It is true PoW's guns heavy guns were far from efficient, but her fire accuracy was not lower than Bismarck's.
You say:
We have photos and film showing at least 11 salvos between 6:03 and 6:09 (same as above).
No we don't. We have no times for any of this material, we only have Antonio's guesswork. I spent some time reviewing the extensive thread on Bismarck's firing Bismarck firing procedures at DS (which this thread is not about) http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =1&t=5752 and noted that this was when the third A (Alecsandros) was ousted from your cabal because he refused to accept your diktats on Bismarck firing at the same rate throughout 14 minutes. He observed the film showing Bismarck firing at much higher rates but was shouted down by you, his former colleagues, because his observation did not fit with fabricating the table you keep reposting, whose only function is pretend PoW's guns were working as efficiently as Bismarck, so you can besmirch Leach's decision to withdraw because his guns were producing so little volume. .


Santarini says:

"PoW's guns heavy guns were far from efficient" and "The mechanical defects in the 356/45 guns early in the battle" and "In spite of the evident troubles caused by the numerous breakdowns affecting the 365/45 guns"


Are these words in your copy of Santarini? Yes or no?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "You were right and I was wrong"
Finally a fair admission instead of the pitiable attempts to deny his error.... Common sense should have suggested him NOT to speak about gunnery anymore, as he is clearly unable to make easy calculations, but here he is again with his nonsense.... :stubborn:

Wadinga wrote: "the film showing Bismarck firing at much higher rates"
Even if the film is showing a faster rate of fire, we KNOW for sure that in 14 minutes Bismarck fired ONLY 93 shells, therefore nothing changes to this discussion, that is based on average values. If Mr.Wadinga wants to propose a different timetable than Antonio's one (I have already done so, posting a possible different salvo plot, respecting the film firing times and slightly modifying his "metronomic" firing sequence, giving also an explanation for this strange quick firing sequence, obviously carefully selected for a "propaganda" film), he is welcome, but the problem he will face is that the film shows the minutes from 6:03 till 6:05 (Bismarck on course 270° as per PG map, firing her turrets on a very evident "aft" bearing, as Mr.Wadinga was already unable to see time ago....), thus any acceleration in her RoF in this interval will be paid by a slower RoF in the critical minutes between 5:55 and 6:02 :lol: OR in a loss of output worse than PoW :lol:

Good luck for his attempt ! BTW, of course he was careful NOT to propose any alternative to 108 ordered shots because possibly he has sensed (without being able to understand it) that any different number will either ridiculously slow down Bismarck RoF or dramatically increase her output loss without changing the FACT that PoW was able to deliver more shells towards Bismarck (see column "Effective # shells per minute") than vice-versa.... :lol: :lol: :lol:

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg (70.88 KiB) Viewed 883 times


Wadinga wrote: "Are these words in your copy of Santarini? Yes or no? "
Yes, so what ? Adm.Santarini conclusion is that her gunnery was EXCELLENT despite these problems ("In spite of the evident troubles caused by the numerous breakdowns affecting the 365/45 guns").

Has Mr.Wadinga finally understood why he (and his fellows RN fans/hooligans) refuse to admit it ? Was he able to read, understand and "digest" what Santarini "politely" explains in the same pag.54 regarding their denial "attitude" ? Yes or no ? :wink:



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

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:40 am Hello everybody,

finally Mr.Dunmunro (who seems to understand a bit better than Mr.Wadinga mathematics as wellas and gunnery aspects... :lol: ) asks a good question (but carefully avoids to propose an alternative to the 108 ordered shots for Bismarck because he knows well that this will change almost nothing to the discussion).
I agree that, not having a detailed Bismarck GAR, we cannot know how many and which guns were actually in action (e.g. we know on PG one fore gun was out of action after the very first salvo) nor how many shots were lost at each salvo due to normal mechanical failures, common to any battleship in the world.
Thanks to the info we have (accounts, film, photos), we can however assume a total ordered shots number of 104-112 and a consequent output loss of around 13%, but again this figure is not really relevant to the discussion because any different number than 108 in the above spreadsheet will (if higher) deteriorate Bismarck output or will (if lower) diminish her RoF compared to PoW.

Therefore the above point does not change the FACTS: PoW had an effective RoF close to Bismarck (as demonstrated mathematically, even with a better number of fired shells per minute thanks to her 10 guns vs.8 and despite her higher output loss) and her gunnery performance was "excellent" as stated also by an expert like Adm.Santarini.

Dunmunro wrote: "Bismarck sank Hood and hit PoW 3 times with her first ~ 50 rounds"
So what ? Of course after her own turn, Bismarck lost precision too.
PoW had hit Bismarck 3 times with her first ~ 37 fired rounds, before Hood exploded and the subsequent course alterations....
It looks like the deniers really don't want to accept a simple arithmetical calculation in order to justify Leach decision to turn away in front of the enemy, as Adm.Santarini clearly understood at pag.54 of his book....



Bye, Alberto
First you claim to have photographic evidence of 11 salvos, but none of these photos appears to show any loss of output. This suggests very strong support for Bismarck having a requested output of 96 rounds, and only 3 rounds loss of output so the output is 93/96 or 97%, which BTW, is about what KGV achieved in a similar interval at the beginning of her action against Bismarck, with Rodney's output being similar.

Secondly you claim that from 0603 onward Bismarck fired at least 44 rounds, which mean that prior to that time she fired 49 rounds and scored at least 4 but probably 5 hits versus 54 rounds from PoW and 3 hits, so this shows a higher hit rate in a similar time interval. Unfortunately for you analysis, we know that there were claims that Hood was sunk with the expenditure of only 40 rounds. Since we know that the 38cm hits on PoW were scored after Bismarck changed targets this means that Bismarck hit PoW 3 times with only ~9 rounds... :oops: So clearly something is wrong with the 11 salvo claim from 0603-0609 or Bismarck's gunnery was extraordinarily effective after she changed targets to PoW. If Bismarck was achieving such a high hit rate, then clearly Leach was correct to open the range ASAP.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,
but the only excellence with regard to PoW's gunnery Santarini mentions is in accuracy, not volume or efficiency.
Since you accept (at last) some of Santarini's observations do you accept:
No one has ever discussed Admiral Tovey's mistake ; namely his taking at face value Leach's optimistic declaration that HMS Prince of Wales was fully operational and ready to take her place in the fleet. The brand new battleship was actually still struggling with mechanical problems when she was ordered to join the Hood in the action against Bismarck, and Tovey's decision was not without effects on the outcome of the battle. In fact apart from the Hood blowing up, the loss of efficiency of the Prince of Wales's heavy guns was probably the worst event that occurred to the British side.
As already brought to your notice by HMSVF?

Bismarck's firing rate is not the subject of this thread and you only keep posting your ridiculous table of spurious figures to try and degrade Bismarck's performance to match PoW's in order to criticize Leach's actions.

You even admit your guilt in distorting the figures in two telling phrases:
Even if the film is showing a faster rate of fire
and
that is based on average values.

Leach wasn't experiencing an "average value" determined by some airy-fairy statistics, he was aware that only once during the entire engagement did any of his guns manage to make a 45 second reload time whereas his opponent was firing individual guns every 25 seconds at times. And so was the other. That is double output against PoW. 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?

Santarini's conclusion that Leach's
hard and objectively valid decision to break off the engagement


was the right one. I presume you think he is wrong?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "but none of these photos appears to show any loss of output."
Wow ! Now Mr. Dunmunro is able to see the difference in a frame between 3 and 4 guns firing from two turrets close one to another ! What an expert ! :negative:

Ok, let's see what happens if we follow his totally unverifiable theory of Bismarck loosing almost no shot:
Dunmunro wrote: "This suggests very strong support for Bismarck having a requested output of 96 rounds, and only 3 rounds loss of output"
As we have 11 (semi-)salvos fired after 6:03 this means 96-44 = 52 shots ordered between 5:55 and 6:03.... therefore only 13 semi-salvos in 8 minutes, a very poor RoF, much lower than PoW one during the critical phases of the battle, when Leach strangely took his decision to break off the engagement because his enemy was "at the peak of his efficiency"... :lol:
The total output loss for Bismarck will result better, but her RoF will be quite worse than PoW one, as easily verifiable substituting his 96 to 108 in the spreadsheet. Of course NOTHING CHANGES significantly re. number of effective shells per minute, having PoW that fired anyway more shells to Bismarck per minute than vice-versa.

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_Dunmunro_1.jpg
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_Dunmunro_1.jpg (71.61 KiB) Viewed 834 times

In addition this will fit neither with the Baron account (40 shots to sink Hood in 5 minutes) , nor with all the witnesses stating Bismarck was firing quite fast.

But there is worse for him: the same Mr.Dunmunro tried until recently to sustain that Bismarck opened fire at 5:53, together with the British ships, thus getting the following incredible result letting her firing for 16 minutes:

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_Dunmunro_2.jpg
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_Dunmunro_2.jpg (74.57 KiB) Viewed 834 times

Is he able now to see how unrealistic are his stubborn denial attempts ?
If he still prefers these results and his personal 96 and 5:53, then we can easily say that PoW was firing much much better than Bismarck ! and that Leach was absolutely wrong steering his ship away from such a weak, slowly firing enemy !




I will not loose my time answering in detail to Mr.Wadinga's nonsense ( and provocations), as he is even unable to make "elementary school calculations". However, his consideration that Leach was experiencing the slowest RoF of Bismarck (between 5:55 and 6:01) but he decided in advance to withdraw anyway his ship at 6:01 because he was expecting his opponent to start firing much more quickly after 6:03 (the film is taken between 6:03 and 6:05, as per PG map) is so ridiculous that deserves at least another.... :kaput:
Wadinga wrote: "he was aware that only once during the entire engagement did any of his guns manage to make a 45 second reload time whereas his opponent was firing individual guns every 25 seconds at times"
NO ! His opponent would have fired so quickly only AFTER 6:03, when PoW was already running away, as per the film (or, please, propose an alternative timing/salvo plot/ battle reconstruction).
Had Bismarck maintained a reload time of 25 seconds for the whole engagement, she would have fired for around 5 minutes and half ONLY (108/8 = 13,5 shots per gun in total and with a reload time of 25 seconds this means 337,5 seconds...).
Of course Mr.Wadinga can try with 96, as suggested by his fellow denier, getting an even worse result, or possibly he can invent UNSUPPORTED firing interruptions during the critical phases of the battle, as he is really very good at speculating...... :lol: :lol: :lol:


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

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:47 pm Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "but none of these photos appears to show any loss of output."
Wow ! Now Mr. Dunmunro is able to see the difference in a frame between 3 and 4 guns firing from two turrets close one to another ! What an expert ! :negative:

Ok, let's see what happens if we follow his totally unverifiable theory of Bismarck loosing almost no shot:
Dunmunro wrote: "This suggests very strong support for Bismarck having a requested output of 96 rounds, and only 3 rounds loss of output"
As we have 11 (semi-)salvos fired after 6:03 this means 96-44 = 52 shots ordered between 5:55 and 6:03.... therefore only 13 semi-salvos in 8 minutes, a very poor RoF, much lower than PoW one during the critical phases of the battle, when Leach strangely took his decision to break off the engagement because his enemy was "at the peak of his efficiency"... :lol:
The total output loss for Bismarck will result better, but her RoF will be quite worse than PoW one, as easily verifiable substituting his 96 to 108 in the spreadsheet. Of course NOTHING CHANGES significantly re. number of effective shells per minute, having PoW that fired anyway more shells to Bismarck per minute than vice-versa.


PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_Dunmunro_1.jpg


In addition this will fit neither with the Baron account (40 shots to sink Hood in 5 minutes) , nor with all the witnesses stating Bismarck was firing quite fast.

But there is worse for him: the same Mr.Dunmunro tried until recently to sustain that Bismarck opened fire at 5:53, together with the British ships, thus getting the following incredible result letting her firing for 16 minutes:


PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_Dunmunro_2.jpg


Is he able now to see how unrealistic are his stubborn denial attempts ?
If he still prefers these results and his personal 96 and 5:53, then we can easily say that PoW was firing much much better than Bismarck ! and that Leach was absolutely wrong steering his ship away from such a weak, slowly firing enemy !




I will not loose my time answering in detail to Mr.Wadinga's nonsense ( and provocations), as he is even unable to make "elementary school calculations". However, his consideration that Leach was experiencing the slowest RoF of Bismarck (between 5:55 and 6:01) but he decided in advance to withdraw anyway his ship at 6:01 because he was expecting his opponent to start firing much more quickly after 6:03 (the film is taken between 6:03 and 6:05, as per PG map) is so ridiculous that deserves at least another.... :kaput:
Wadinga wrote: "he was aware that only once during the entire engagement did any of his guns manage to make a 45 second reload time whereas his opponent was firing individual guns every 25 seconds at times"
NO ! His opponent would have fired so quickly only AFTER 6:03, when PoW was already running away, as per the film (or, please, propose an alternative timing/salvo plot/ battle reconstruction).
Had Bismarck maintained a reload time of 25 seconds for the whole engagement, she would have fired for around 5 minutes and half ONLY (108/8 = 13,5 shots per gun in total and with a reload time of 25 seconds this means 337,5 seconds...).
Of course Mr.Wadinga can try with 96, as suggested by his fellow denier, getting an even worse result, or possibly he can invent UNSUPPORTED firing interruptions during the critical phases of the battle, as he is really very good at speculating...... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Bye, Alberto
You've completely failed to address any of the points that I made in my last post.

A/A claim to be able to establish all kinds of data by examining the KM photos, yet can find no evidence of loss of output... :think:

Bismarck's output can be split into 3 sections:

Output against Hood until she blew up (~0553-0558). ~40 rounds? 2 hits?

Output against PoW until she turned to open the range (~0558-0602) ~32 rounds? 3 hits?

Output against PoW after she turned to open the range (~0602-0609) ~56 rounds!!!? or 21 rounds? No hits?

We can see from the above that Bismarck's output was not constant during the total firing time. If we give Bismarck constant output then her accuracy during the firing intervals against Hood and then PoW either becomes very high as the number of rounds fired becomes much smaller during those intervals or Bismarck's output was much higher during the interval from open fire to PoW's turn.

We can look at it again using 0555 for Bismarck's open fire time and 0558 as the time for Hood's fatal explosion:

Output against Hood until she blew up (~0555-0558). ~24 rounds? 2 hits?

Output against PoW until she turned to open the range (~0558-0602) ~32 rounds? 3 hits?

Output against PoW after she turned to open the range (~0602-0609) ~56 rounds!!!? or 37 rounds? No hits.

We can look at it again using 0555 for Bismarck's open fire time and 0600 as the time for Hood's fatal explosion:

Output against Hood until she blew up (~0555-0600). ~40 rounds? 2 hits?

Output against PoW until she turned to open the range (~0600-0602) ~16 rounds!!? 3 hits?

Output against PoW after she turned to open the range (~0602-0609) ~ 56 rounds!!!? or 37 rounds? No hits?

And we get the same pattern of extreme accuracy from Hood's loss until 0602.

From a gunnery PoV which scenario seems most likely?

Of course I haven't looked at PE's output, but we'd get the same pattern of high accuracy against PoW until ~0602.
Post Reply