Direct Hits received by H.M. Ships on May 27

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Senior Member
Posts: 1865
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Direct Hits received by H.M. Ships on May 27

Post by wadinga » Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:04 pm

Hello All,

Here is the enemy fire damage received by Rodney as described in R A Burt's British Battleships.
During the action Rodney received very little damage from return fire- three minor shrapnel holes in the side and another small hole which cut the searchlight control leads on the conning tower level. The high-angle director trainer telescope was distorted and put out of action.
All the rest was blast and shock damage from own main guns often firing at very low elevation.

Even Miller does not say direct hits. Photos of the splinter damage to Sheffield in In Ronald Bassett's HMS Sheffield show holes 6" long in plates from shrapnel from 15 " shell bursts.

Since we know from description that there were no direct hits we will not need to rely on speculation:
I find quite unconceivable that not a single 5.9" hit was scored,
Bismarck's fire was completely ineffectual.

All the best

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

Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Direct Hits received by H.M. Ships on May 27

Post by dunmunro » Fri Feb 16, 2018 6:54 pm

I agree completely with the above. There's no corroborating evidence that Rodney was hit by any intact shells.

I felt compelled to provide the information from Miller, but it is certain that Miller was mistaken.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3439
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Direct Hits received by H.M. Ships on May 27

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:28 pm

Hello everybody,
while I have some doubts myself about 4 direct hits, I don't share the unshakeable certainties from Wadinga and Dunmunro. :negative:

Miller was a chief petty officer in the USN, I assume he was knowing the difference between splinters and shells and he was able to make the difference between damages from the first and the latters.
Miller _Wellings.jpg
Miller _Wellings.jpg (77.44 KiB) Viewed 3971 times

The fact that these listed damages are NOT included in the Rodney official report adds some doubts.... and leaves the suspect that at least some of them were actually direct hits, not exploded (duds, or with "mild" explosion, or even exploding outside the ship after traversing the bulkheads), as it happened to several shells from Bismarck and PG on PoW during the DS battle. :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)

Senior Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Direct Hits received by H.M. Ships on May 27

Post by northcape » Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:33 pm

Wadinga et al., there is one simple rule at internet forums: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

How to recognize a troll? For example, simply be the frequent use of specific symbols like " :think: ". (Actually, this symbol is called "think"; isn't it ironic that it is used by people who do completely the opposite?)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Direct Hits received by H.M. Ships on May 27

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:07 am

Hello everybody,

I simply cannot agree more about this lately :
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 )

Post Reply