Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3569
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by dunmunro » Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:43 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "CS1 sighted BC1's smoke at 0516/24 and did not positively identify BC1 till later"
Hi Dunacn,
NO ! Listen at his interview ! He "KNEW IT MUST BE BC1" (or he was a total stupid, that I don't want to think).

I assure you I don't think Hood had to explode. Had Hood been hit in another place, the early intervention of Norfolk would have been even more valuable, more and more as distance was decreasing and Norfolk could get below 20,000 yards.


Wadinga wrote: "AFAIK both ships were equipped with 15ft rangefinders"
Hi Sean,
PoW one was much newer (I hope....). I don't have data for Norfolk.
If what you say is correct, we can expect anyway the same error from the same distance, isn't it ?
I do hope Dave will clarify you the reliability of a 15 feet rangefinder (from 1928) at 13sm distance...... :negative:


I still think Norfolk gunnery report from May 24 is totally unreliable, starting from its absolute timing.
Of course it cannot be true as the NF track (both the Pinchin's and the Strategical Plot one) CANNOT explain why distance was decreasing slowly in 16 minutes, while it should decrease sharply in the first 8 minutes and then increasing again (sharply after 11 minutes).


Bye, Alberto
Alberto, we'll have to agree to disagree about when CS1 identified BC1, as we've discussed W-W did not have access to the Admiralty Master Plot identifying the name and location of every vessel in the North Atlantic, and later this nearly led to the annihilation of the hapless USCG Madoc.

Again, you appear to think that Lutjens had no other options and was intent on engaging Hood.

Norfolk and PoW both had 15ft RFs in their DCTs. PoW's was a later model and was a duplex (two RFs built into one mounting) unit. However, we have had discussions regarding visibility and how NF might have had better seeing conditions than PoW. The fact that NF states the ranges so precisely would indicate that they were the best estimates from her RF rangetaker or from her AFCT plot.

RF ranges can be variable but often when the ranges reported are wildly inaccurate it indicates that the RFs were not usable.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:52 pm

Hi Duncan,
yes we have to agree we disagree, if you don't want to listen at what Wake-Walker himself said.....

you wrote: "it indicates that the RFs were not usable."
and, in this case, opening fire can help a lot checking the distance..... as McMullen did, not getting a range..... :negative:

As already said, it's simply IMPOSSIBLE that the gunnery report of NF is correct, due to NF and BS tracks and relative distances.Please verify yourself on the map (if you prefer, use Pinchin's one with the correct track for Germans), even correcting the totally wrong timings: distance should decrease sharply from open fire till 6:00, then it should increase.....
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg.jpg
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg.jpg (71.44 KiB) Viewed 2296 times
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: 3569
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by dunmunro » Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:04 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Hi Duncan,
yes we have to agree we disagree, if you don't want to listen at what Wake-Walker himself said.....

you wrote: "it indicates that the RFs were not usable."
and, in this case, opening fire can help a lot checking the distance..... as McMullen did, not getting a range..... :negative:

As already said, it's simply IMPOSSIBLE that the gunnery report of NF is correct, due to NF and BS tracks and relative distances.Please verify yourself on the map, even correcting the totally wrong timings:
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg.jpg
Bye, Alberto
We know what W-W said well after he knew that it was BC1, but we don't know what he said between 0516 and 0550/24.

14in shell splashes are visible to beyond 30k yds. 8in to maybe 25k yds, opening fire when the range is clearly beyond that is a waste of ammunition.

You think the NF gunnery report inaccurate because it doesn't match your estimate of the plot but maybe it indicates that your plot and relative bearing from which it was derived are incorrect.
Last edited by dunmunro on Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:09 pm

Please Duncan
I told you to use Pinchin's and you will see that NF gunnery is WRONG in any case, provided you are able to replace the German track with the correct one.....


It's a waste of time with you proposing always the same nonsense, not a waste of ammunition.....AGAIN I explained you how NF could have been at less than 23,000 yards by 06:00 without her timid maneuvers and how her fire could be useful even when not effective.... Just read above !

Of course, if you don't try to get closer (and instead you turn out at 05:41 :oops: ), checking distance opening fire (as PG did with her first vollsalve) you will never be able to spot your fall of shells...... :think:


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: 3569
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by dunmunro » Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:16 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Please Duncan
I told you to use Pinchin's and you will see that NF gunnery is WRONG in any case, provided you are able to replace the German track with the correct one.....


It's a waste of time with you proposing always the same nonsense, not a waste of ammunition.....AGAIN I explained you how NF could have been at less than 23,000 yards by 06:00 without her timid maneuvers and how her fire could be useful even when not effective.... Just read above !

Of course, if you don't try to get closer (and instead you turn out at 05:41 :oops: ), checking distance opening fire (as PG did with her first vollsalve) you will never be able to spot your fall of shells...... :think:


Bye, Alberto
Pinchin made his best effort to reconcile the available data, but that doesn't mean that NF's gunnery data was wrong, only that other data conflicted with it.

You always assume that Lutjens, Bismarck, and PE have no other options and will continue on their course regardless of what CS1 does almost as though they were running on automatic pilot, and could not be influenced by external events. W-W could not possibly imagine that that was true, so why do you?

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Dave Saxton » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:16 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Please, wait for Dave to explain you how WWII rangefinders work and their reliability.
I consider others more qualified to speak to RN optics than myself.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:22 pm

@Dunmunro:
hi Duncan,
as you are not even able to admit that you were wrong with the NF gunnery, I understand that we speak different languages. There was only ONE battle of the DS on MAy 24 and the ships were in a certain position at a certain time. No "conflicting" reality.
It's better to stop here this nonsense discussion. You keep Pinchin, or the NF gunnery or your never ending "fog of war" indetermination, while I keep a more reliable map, reconstructed with all available data.

I don't assume anything about Lutjens intentions :negative: , I just note what W-W did to be of any help (nothing at all). You like it, I don't. :oops:

Let's keep our different opinions.


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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3581
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:03 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

do not loose anymore time and efforts.

Now that they know they have lost their battle, ... they will also have to admit finally why those documents have been altered intentionally.

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by wadinga » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:52 pm

Hello Antonio,

When Napoleon launched the Imperial Guard at Waterloo he thought the battle was over.............................

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3581
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:14 pm

Hello everybody,

It reminds me about a couple of other situations I have lived in the past on those forums ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

... same stubborn and blind reluctance to accept the evident facts, ... same sad end ... and the same final winner.

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by paul.mercer » Thu Feb 08, 2018 4:19 pm

Gentlemen,
Forgive my intervention, but it seems that we have three threads going on almost the same subjects and in some cases regrettably getting rather heated on some occasions particularly on what was said or written at the time and after. I’m afraid I do not have your knowledge and expertise to enter the debate on a technical basis, but from what I have read in all my books on the Bismarck and from the posts here on the subject I have (rightly or wrongly!) come to the following conclusions, even though they may seem overly simplistic.
Bismarck and Prince Eugane break out from Norway and are picked up by Norfolk and Suffolk who shadow them until Hood and PoW arrive and start the battle. Hood sinks and PoW takes a beating and withdraws because several of her guns are giving problems but with the intention of joining up with the two cruisers. Meanwhile B and PE carry on while the damage to B is being accessed, with the cruisers continuing to shadow them. Lutjens decides to send PE on her way and turns on the cruisers and sends them running into the fog with a few well-chosen salvoes and then resumes her course, despite steering a zizg zag course he realises he cannot shake off the cruisers so outwits them on one of his turns and makes for Brest after exchanging a few long range shots with PoW.
It seems clear to me – within my limited knowledge, that Capt Leach and Admiral Wake-Walker were very doubtful of PoW’s ability to take on Bismarck even with the help of the cruisers, which does beg the question of what might have occurred if Bismarck had turned on them at close range in the fog and fired a full 15” broadside at PoW or the cruisers, even though there might have been a risk from the cruisers torpedoes, the possibility of that happening and adding perhaps another 2500 men from the three ships to the 1400 of Hood probably prompted Wake-Walker not to re-engage.
As regards what was said and written at the time and later and by whom about re-engaging, I think I read somewhere that there was some implied criticism of the Captain of the cruiser Newcastle for not engaging when she came across the Twins picking up survivors from an armed merchant cruiser.
Basically the answer was that cruisers do not engage capital ships on their own if they want to survive so in my humble opinion this must surely apply to a badly wounded battleship and her two cruisers when face with a powerful and fully operational battleship. As for what was written at a later date, there may well have been some covering of the a---s by some as well as some memory loss over time with others, but one has to remember that the RN and the Admiralty hierarchy in particular were not used to losing battles, let alone a capital ship that was the pride of the Navy and could be very intolerant of those who did (had Admiral Holland survived he would almost certainly face a Court Marshal to explain his actions) as they wanted to do to Admiral Wake Walker, Capt Leach and possibly even the Captains of the two Cruisers (although there does not seem to be evidence of this bit) and I think that there is little doubt in their view that two capital ships with 18 heavy guns between then plus two heavy two cruisers mounting 16 8” guns should have dealt with one carrying 8x15” and one with 8 x 8”. Of course, we will probably never find out exactly what went on, no doubt there is further evidence buried in the RN archives that may be released at some time, but if it’s there under the 100 year rule, we won’t be seeing it!
Sorry for such a long post, but this with my extremely limited knowledge is my opinion.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3569
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by dunmunro » Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:24 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

It reminds me about a couple of other situations I have lived in the past on those forums ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

... same stubborn and blind reluctance to accept the evident facts, ... same sad end ... and the same final winner.

Bye Antonio :D
"...stubborn and blind reluctance to accept the evident facts..."

Yes, there's certainly a lot of that... IIRC, we had a long discussion about SF turning at ~0540 and some people swore it never happened...!

Now we have a similar reluctance to accept that there was only one ROOF message sent to KGV.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:39 pm

Paul Mercer wrote: "...it seems that we have three threads going on almost the same subjects...."
Hi Paul,
:clap: You are absolutely right, as the above post confirms! I guess this is what happens when people is left without arguments and try to mix everything together.....



While I do appreciate your previous moderate post, there is one aspect about the re-engagement (to stay on subject) where I don't agree with your statement: :think:
you wrote (my underlined): "....this must surely apply to a badly wounded battleship and her two cruisers when face with a powerful and fully operational battleship..."
Well, if we compare the battle efficiency of PoW and Bismarck after the battle, I would not say this way.
PoW damages were "superficial" (as per Leach message to Wake-Walker, already few hours after the battle). Bismarck had sustained more critical damages as she had lost a generator room, a boiler room was seriously leaking (and it will have to be abandoned later), she had lost precious fuel and her speed was reduced due to the bow damages (water pressure strain against the forward bulkhead immediately aft of the holes) . She had embarked much more water then PoW, while all PoW guns were back in action already during the second "engagement". PoW had however incurred casualties on board, while Bismarck had not.
The reason for this "legend about the PoW heavy damages" comes exactly from what you had correctly written above:
you wrote: "As for what was written at a later date, there may well have been some covering of the a---s by some "
:clap:


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: 3569
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by dunmunro » Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:10 pm

PoW's radar system were OOS, she lost one 14in gun permanently, and all her secondary FC systems were OOS before Leach turned at ~0602. She then lost Y turret for 4 hours

After the loss of Y turret it was apparent that there was a design flaw in the turret ammo feed system, and this undoubtedly weighed on Leach's mind.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by wadinga » Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:14 pm

Hello Paul,

You should check every statement carefully, because your "limited knowledge" is looking just fine; :ok:
while all PoW guns were back in action already during the second "engagement".
Gun A1 stopped after fifth salvo, gun A3 stopped after 11th salvo. So while all guns may have been nominally "available", their chronic unreliability in the first engagement would be the same in subsequent useage. Y turret wouldn't bear after salvo 6. Leach and Wake-Walker were well aware of this.

Oh yes and shell ring A jammed in the third engagement. Source: PoW Gunnery Narrative of Events.

Do not worry about the 100 year rule, I was looking through a file only yesterday, marked "Closed until 2046"! It was rescinded. :cool: There is a great deal more to be uncovered and I believe none of it will support a giant conspiracy of RN officers covering dereliction of duty.

Additional threads have been created so as to bury evidence which has already countered and debunked certain groundless assertions, which can then be restated. Also chopping things up enables the charge of "off topic" to be raised every time an inconvenient piece of evidence is presented. The search tools will enable you to find previous times topics have been covered.

So "Fasten your seatbelts it's gonna be a bumpy ride!" but lots of fun :lol:

All the best

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

Post Reply