KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2712
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:49 pm

Hi Mr.Cag, thanks for the explanation.

I think there are 3 major questions still open, after having merged the official GAR info (McMullen) and the Vickers notes (Wilkinson/Barben):

1) Did PoW fire 55 (McMullen) or 56 (Barben) shots under director control at DS ? I would say that the total number of 105 shells expended during the whole operation is reliable (both reports concur on it). The question is the split between the three engagements.

2) Is it possible that "Y" turret No. 4 gun was fired three times consecutively at salvo 16, 17 and 18, or should we assume that the 6 shells shot by this gun are a mistake from Barben ? Here, personally, missing the input from someone really expert of British firing methodology that could confirm the "consecutive" firing as an "established" practice (under exceptional circumstances), I would tend to say that Barben made a mistake in the count......

3) As the "B" turret problem arose when it was needed to re-feed the shell ring, I would assume it happened at salvo 11 (after having fired the 2 shells loaded in the guns + the 8 shells of the ring), however it should affect before the gun No.1, while it is the No.2 missing 2 shots. Here there is another question for an expert: we have assumed up to now that the first guns fired were the odd ones (1 and 3 of each turret). Could it be that the even are fired first, at least in "B" turret ?


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: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Cag » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:03 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto, I would say that 105 rounds fired in the three engagements would be about right.

1) This is unknown at the moment, it all depends on Barbens 6 rounds for Y turret. Interestingly according to the other Archive letter by Barben there was a Vickers man in A turret with PoW Lt Cawthra, Barben and another Vickers employee in B turret and PoW Lt Lancaster was alone in Y turret. According to McMullens report a Vickers employee was in every turret, this could be a mistake by McMullen so both may be liable to error.

Y turret No 3 gun had no cordite supplied in the main cage and caused the gun to miss salvos 15 to 20 whilst this was resolved, gun No 2 loading cage failed so no loading could take place from salvo 14 on. What would happen to No2 central hoist position? I assume there would be no more shells or cordite rammed or delivered but what would happen to the shells and charges already in the main cage I'm not sure.

Y turret No1 gun missed due to unknown reason, would this mean that guns would be firing out of sequence ie 2 gun salvos but using guns 1 and 4 together or would we have guns continuing to fire in salvo order ie gun 1 followed by gun 4 in the next salvo? I would suggest the latter to enable the continuous salvo firing without loss of Y turrets contribution to continue and the nos2 and 3 guns would need to be rectified if possible.

2) Again this depends on who got it right, I would be cautious and say that it would be more likely that perhaps Barben is mistaken, but we do not know for sure. On looking at the supply it would be difficult for a double firing in the 20 second gap between salvos even if other shells were available.

3) B turret is a problem either way we look at it. As for the issues the turret had, on the 23rd the central ammo hoist arrestor failed due to the axis pin. It was removed and could not be re installed.

The forward shell room hinge trays fouled the shell ring locking bolt, this put both these trays out of action, they were removed just a few minutes after action stations. These hinge trays allow the shells from the shell room waiting trays to be rammed across to the shell ring trays. I assume that if the forward shell room could no longer pass shells another set of shell rooms could load this area of the ring?

McMullen reports no mechanical defect in B turret, but Barben mentions a staff induced defect, if we assume Barben is correct we have 3 losses accounted for. If we assume McMullen is correct then we have 3 losses to find in either A or Y turret to make up the correct total number of losses.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by wadinga » Wed Aug 01, 2018 12:37 am

Hello All,

This is the right place to wrangle about PoW's guns.

Much of the analysis has been done before.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by wadinga » Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:47 pm

Hello All,
This is the right place to wrangle about PoW's guns.

Much of the analysis has been done before.

Santarini's analysis is a classic example of too much complicated statistical analysis based on inadequate base data delivering a pseudo-scientific result with fatal flaws. With no GARs from Bismarck and Prinz Eugen much of the base data he attempts to use is his own guesswork, just like A & A "reconstructions", averaging German ROFs over the total engagement time to create an erroneous picture. The result, accidental or deliberate, is to mislead by suggesting Bismarck had a similar rate of fire to PoW (but with a much lower output loss) whereas the reality was PoW was hardly ever able to better one shot per gun per minute, and even then suffered twice the failure rate of Bismarck. The film shows the same individual guns firing aboard Bismarck with RoF of little more than 20 seconds. This proves the averaging technique to be completely invalid.


At times, Bismarck alone, was firing twice as fast as PoW with half as many failures. Prinz Eugen was also engaging PoW.

We do know when PoW's salvos were fired and have a strong understanding of which guns were in which salvo. No such detailed information exists for the Germans. Even the chronicling of PoW's salvoes in the tables only to the nearest minute does not identify those long periods Leach endured when his own guns were silent whilst Bismarck and Prinz Eugen's weapons dropped several salvos on or around him. Guns aboard PoW did not swap their groups, so for instance when gun A3 missed its own group at 05:56 it was not ready to fire until 05:58 having effectively taken two minutes to reload not thirty seconds as was theoretically possible. McMullen's breezy and uninformed comment, he was in a director, not using pinchbars and chain blocks to load guns, that the guns were "fine" was modified after the action when he realised the problems encountered, which is when he endorsed Leach's decision in breaking off the action.


Leach's untried ship was seriously outmatched at point blank range and it was essential to open the range and have a breather from the pummelling. He was not able to influence the decision by the German commander to withdraw out of action at the same time, to avoid imaginary torpedoes, and to continue to refuse action against the British by heading SW at speed, instead of turning on his wounded adversary.



All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2712
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:15 pm

Hello everybody,

unable to counter the Court Martial threat, Mr.Wadinga now tries desperately to re-open an already closed discussion, as demonstrated by Adm.Santarini at pag.50 and 54 of his book, where PoW gunnery performance and RoF are defined "excellent" by a gunnery specialist, not by a RN fan at any cost like Mr.Wadinga. :kaput:


In addition to Adm.Santarini analysis, PoW gunnery performance, especially the RoF, can be compared to Bismarck one using the same British methodology used by McMullen in his GAR, demonstrating that, in average, PoW was delivering more shells per minute against Bismarck than the ones Bismarck was able to deliver against Hood and PoW during the whole engagement. The only assumption is the number of salvo ordered aboard Bismarck that, from the analysis of the photos and film, is between 104 and 112. We know anyway FOR SURE the total number of shells expended and the duration of the fight (even if another "denier" is trying to move Bismarck open fire time at 5:53, thus making even worse her RoF, unable to realize this simple fact.... :negative: )

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg (70.88 KiB) Viewed 238 times

The fact that Bismarck, at times (AFTER 6:03, as demonstrated by the film/photos because Bismarck is on course 270°, while Mr.Wadinga was unable to understand some time ago....) could achieve a better RoF does not affect the conclusions and even implies that she was slower than PoW during the critical phases of the engagement (from 6:00 to 6:03).




Adm.Santarini, at pag. 54, also explain why the British tend to minimize the PoW performance: because a fair evaluation of McMullen excellent job would have created doubts about Leach decision to disengage, as Mr.Wadinga has just proven here above..... :lol:



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

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by dunmunro » Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:11 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:15 pm
Hello everybody,

unable to counter the Court Martial threat, Mr.Wadinga now tries desperately to re-open an already closed discussion, as demonstrated by Adm.Santarini at pag.50 and 54 of his book, where PoW gunnery performance and RoF are defined "excellent" by a gunnery specialist, not by a RN fan at any cost like Mr.Wadinga. :kaput:


In addition to Adm.Santarini analysis, PoW gunnery performance, especially the RoF, can be compared to Bismarck one using the same British methodology used by McMullen in his GAR, demonstrating that, in average, PoW was delivering more shells per minute against Bismarck than the ones Bismarck was able to deliver against Hood and PoW during the whole engagement. The only assumption is the number of salvo ordered aboard Bismarck that, from the analysis of the photos and film, is between 104 and 112. We know anyway FOR SURE the total number of shells expended and the duration of the fight (even if another "denier" is trying to move Bismarck open fire time at 5:53, thus making even worse her RoF, unable to realize this simple fact.... :negative: )


PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg


The fact that Bismarck, at times (AFTER 6:03, as demonstrated by the film/photos because Bismarck is on course 270°, while Mr.Wadinga was unable to understand some time ago....) could achieve a better RoF does not affect the conclusions and even implies that she was slower than PoW during the critical phases of the engagement (from 6:00 to 6:03).




Adm.Santarini, at pag. 54, also explain why the British tend to minimize the PoW performance: because a fair evaluation of McMullen excellent job would have created doubts about Leach decision to disengage, as Mr.Wadinga has just proven here above..... :lol:



Bye, Alberto
A/A is using a completely imagined output % for Bismarck. We have no info on that and there's no indication from the film that Bismarck suffered any loss of output. It is rather reprehensible to submit made up information as fact.

Just to recap:
PoW's radar FC systems all failed prior to the action
1x 14in gun was known that it would fail after one salvo
PoW's command team was largely destroyed or incapcitated
Her Walrus, which would have allowed for increased FC accuracy in place of radar was damaged by 38cm splinters just before launch and ditched
PoW suffered machinery damage from the same hit
3 of her 4 x 5.25in directors were knocked out and 5.25in fire ceased after 3 salvos
PoW suffered UW damage aft and midships from 20.3cm and 38cm hits
PoW's 14in guns were suffering from numerous faults leading to poor output

Given all the above PoW was not likely to stop Lutjens and/or cause sufficient damage to Bismarck to justify the probability of crippling and/or fatal damage to PoW.

Santorini fully supports Leach's decision to withdraw. However Santorini has incorrect open fire times for Bismarck and incorrect times for hits on PoW which skews his analysis.

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by HMSVF » Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:07 pm

Even if you were to consider POW's rate of fire impressive (despite issues)...

Was it actually effective after 06:00?


She could have fired off all her ammunition.


Would look statistically impressive. What wouldn't be so impressive if she couldn't/didn't hit anything.


Best wishes


HMSVF

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by wadinga » Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:55 pm

Hello Alberto,

Why do you complain about me using the correct thread when you direct traffic here I can't imagine. :?
to re-open an already closed discussion

Closed only to closed minds. :D
specially the RoF, can be compared to Bismarck one using the same British methodology used by McMullen in his GAR,

We don't need to because we have the times of the individual salvoes for PoW, we don't have them for Bismarck. Only because you guess the film shows 06:03 to 06:09 do you think Bismarck was shooting rapidly during this period. Given that both German ships were manoeuvring so violently PG managed to be in Bismarck's line of sight and various turret groups were unable to see the target at all, it is likely the rate of fire was very low if not zero. Chopping 6 minutes out of your averaging exercise for Bismarck's rate of fire, certainly changes her average rate.


PoW's "Rate" includes only the period up to salvo 18 ie no breaks
For PoW only the director control firing is taken into account (thus 56 shots, please see my post from yesterday in this thread).

So excludes the period when PoW is heeling wildly (I thought you were going to capsize!") and not firing at all until 06:03.


Whereas Bismarck's 14 minutes goes all the way from open fire to 06:09 including the 6 minute period when both she and her target were changing course at maximum heel making fire control and firing impossible. Nice sleight of hand. It's called massaging the figures to achieve the required answer. Different methodologies used for different ships to get the required answer.


Do you really want me to embarrass you with all the descriptions of the problems with PoW's guns that Santarini fills the two previous pages before his observation you have chosen to highlight? Especially since he is specifically praising the accuracy of PoW's shooting not her volume. Bismarck, with PG's help, is smothering PoW with fire and scoring many hits as a result.

Would you like to explain why, even on your chosen page, from which you have deliberately not quoted, but artfully "paraphrased" Santarini's observation, he says:
On the other hand, by excessively exalting the effectiveness of fire of the Prince of Wales it would have reinforced doubts in the minds of those who were strongly dissatisfied with the outcome of the battle over Leach's hard and objectively valid decision to break off the engagement.
........my underlining? Even though Santarini parrots the CMDS myth at the beginning of the section ("As is well known..."), his analysis shows Leach's decision to be objectively valid.

Please don't pretend he supports your faulty premise that Leach's guns were "just fine". On page 50 when says two salvos per minute that still means each individual gun is only firing at about 60 second intervals. For Bismarck he claims five "salvoes" in four minutes but the forty shell total means he is talking about five broadsides, not "salvoes". Whilst PoW is firing 2 and 3 gun salvoes, Bismarck's are 4 shell salvoes. During minute 05:57 PoW manages only one salvo. Having straddled (hit) with the sixth salvo PoW still plods on with one shot per gun per minute until the 06:00 minute when she actually gets three salvoes away in a minute, A2, A4 and Y4 having managed the phenomenal feat of reloading in about 45 seconds, although both B2 and Y2 missed the opportunity.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2712
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:14 am

Hello everybody,
an irreducible RN fan wrote: "A/A is using a completely imagined output % for Bismarck"
FALSE !
We know for sure the expended shells (93) and we know for sure the fighting interval (from 5:55 to 6:09, despite the pitiable attempt of the same person to move open fire at 5:53, that would anyway make Bismarck RoF even WORSE as clear to everybody except him... :stubborn: ).
The ONLY "assumption" is the ordered shots number, that can be inferred from photos, film and 40 shells expended to sink Hood: Antonio's 2005 reconstruction pointed to 104, the further analysis points to 104 - 112, and this guy will be FOREVER unable to propose a different solution, because if he tries to stubbornly say that Bismack had no output problems, this way her RoF will be ridiculously SLOW and much worse than PoW, while enhancing this figure will get to an unsupported (from witnesses) abnormal loss of output for her. Unfortunately for them these people have no way to counter the presented figures.
In any way the effective shells per minute are a FACT not being affected by ANY assumption, and they show PoW was delivering more shells against Bismarck than vice-versa, until Leach decision to break off the engagement.


Of course another "denier" is now trying to re-propose his crazy theory of Bismarck on course 270° in a period different from 6:03-6:05, but he will be UNABLE as well to propose a serious battlemap (he was even able to use Schmalenbach 1943 battlemap to support his speciulation).... :negative:
Unfortunately for them Antonio's 2005 reconstruction allows to infer Bismarck gunnery.
PoW gunnery shows exactly 2 salvos per minute (as it was in average for Bismarck), Adm Santarini's opinion (as gunnery specilist) about PoW gunnery and RoF ("excellent") and McMullen message to his Captain ("Guns are OK") are certainly more valid than this unqualified guy's unfounded arguments.


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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by wadinga » Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:08 pm

Hello Alberto,


Obviously you do wish me to embarrass you with how badly you misrepresent Admiral Santarini. Oh well, if you insist :D :

Now your quote from Santarini's book is down to one word
Adm Santarini's opinion (as gunnery specilist) about PoW gunnery and RoF ("excellent")
I'm having difficulty finding "excellent" anywhere around p 52 to 54, of course you have chosen to replace Santarini's words with your own personalised version of context again, as it is so inconvenient he completely fails to support you.

All the same the battleship was unable to continue the ballistic engagement with her average rate of fire ie three shots per salvo imposed by the numerous mechanical failures dogging the 356/45 guns.

A slight correction to the gunnery specialist from the "unqualified guy": Rate of fire relates to time not to number of shells per salvo. HMS had a fantastic rate of fire according to the Santarini criterion- 50 shots per salvo! :D


Later on the same page 52:
The mechanical defects in the 356/45 guns early in the battle were to prove Leach's decision highly premature.
Don't get excited- Leach's decision was to declare PoW battleworthy.


On page 53

In spite of the evident troubles caused by the numerous breakdowns affecting the 365/45 guns, he managed with great skill to hit the Bismarck three times......

Your gunnery specialist is convinced that PoW's guns were breaking down frequently- why don't believe him or at least stop pretending his conclusions are in any way similar to yours?
The ONLY "assumption"

The enormous assumption is that Bismarck's shell expenditure can be averaged over the full 14 minutes when everybody knows Bismarck undertook violent steering manoeuvres at about 06:03 onwards restricting firing. Even PoW's salvo plot shows her turning away sharply. Antonio's old map used to show Bismarck making extreme rate 50 degree turns at 06:03 and 06:05, but who knows what he alleges now? Since his map is constantly massaged to support whatever version of the Conspiracy is current, it might now deny Bismarck ever turned at all. And please no salesman's pitch for the wonderfulness of German fire control that wasn't perturbed "at all" by rapid heading changes and heeling of the vessel. Accurate gunnery requires straight courses otherwise warships would be constantly zigzagging.


I wonder what is the practical difference between
allows to infer Bismarck gunnery
and

A/A is using a completely imagined output % for Bismarck
All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by wadinga » Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:15 pm

Hello All,
HMS had a fantastic rate of fire according to the Santarini criterion- 50 shots per salvo!

That's Nelson's flagship HMS Victory by the way :wink:


All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2712
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:04 pm

Hello everybody,
I had written: "....Adm.Santarini at pag.50 and 54 of his book, where PoW gunnery performance and RoF are defined "excellent" by a gunnery specialist...."
Wadinga wrote: "I'm having difficulty finding "excellent" anywhere around p 52 to 54, of course you have chosen to replace Santarini's words with your own personalised version of context"
We have here a confirmation that Mr.Wadinga has difficulties not only with counting pages, geometry, maps and British official documents, but even reading his own language!


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2712
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:05 pm

Pag.50:
Santarini_pag.50_PoW_Gunnery_Performance.jpg
Santarini_pag.50_PoW_Gunnery_Performance.jpg (30.08 KiB) Viewed 178 times

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2712
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:06 pm

Pag. 54
Santarini_pag.54_Bismarck_Performance.jpg
Santarini_pag.54_Bismarck_Performance.jpg (45.83 KiB) Viewed 178 times

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

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: KGV and PoW GAR during Op. Rheinubung

Post by HMSVF » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:52 pm

wadinga wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:15 pm
Hello All,
HMS had a fantastic rate of fire according to the Santarini criterion- 50 shots per salvo!

That's Nelson's flagship HMS Victory by the way :wink:


All the best

wadinga

From Santarini (Conclusion/Final perspective)
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.

Indeed

Throughout the summer months Prince of Wales and King George V carried out numerous exercises firing the 14 inch,5.25 and close range AA. During this periods multiple modifications were made to the loading mechanisms of the big guns , to give greater clearance to the interlocks to prevent the constant jammings which had dogged the gunnery efficiency during the Bismarck action.
VE Tarrant - King George V Battleships.



Additionally when it came to sending a battleship to the Far East it seemed that the lessons that Santarini highlighted were learnt because Churchill's first choice HMS Duke of York was considered too new and Pound ordered HMS Prince of Wales (with Leach) east instead.


Best wishes



HMSVF

Post Reply