PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:47 pm

pgollin wrote: "No. Your claim was rubbish"
No, the above post is an insult.

"pgollin" can go and complain against McMullen for his (correct) choice to show PoW gunnery performances, excluding the local salvos. :lol:




Btw, I have modified the "annoying table" to include the local salvos (this was and still is methodologically incorrect) to satisfy the request of so many forum members here. We know their timing from the PoW GAR, from photo NH69731 (salvo 19) and from the PG film (salvos 20 and 21). Adding 3 salvos, delivering only 4 shots and evaluating that the salvo 21 was fired at around 06:04:00, we get this not less annoying table:

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparson_with local salvos.jpg
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparson_with local salvos.jpg (78.03 KiB) Viewed 700 times

PoW still fires in a way that cannot be defined "poor" from average effective RoF viewpoint, fully in line with Bismarck, delivering more shells to Bismarck than vice-versa.
What a surprise!


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:54 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"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)

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:57 pm

.

My post was not an insult - your claim was completely at odds with how the RN and Whale Island worked.

And, you you read the link that you posted you will see that McMullen did note the salvoes fired in local control.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:01 pm

"a forum member wrote: "And, you you read the link that you posted you will see that McMullen did note the salvoes fired in local control"
...not including them however in the table that he prepared to show PoW average RoF (correctly).

Therefore "pgollin" can complain with someone else, if comprehensibly unhappy with the results of both the tables.


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: 1965
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:21 pm

Fellow Contributors,
so we have two errors here (Can Mr.Wadinga post the original photo with the photographer signed caption ? He is confused between a wrong archivist caption and Lagemann's...)
I believe Mr Virtuani knows that the only person who can do that is his co-author who has been to the Bundesarchiv, handled these originals, but has refused to do what Mr Virtuani asks rhetorically here, even when he, Mr Bonomi, was requested directly to do so (several times) on this forum. Mr Virtuani is apparently confident that since his co-author refuses to give this information under any circumstances for reasons the reader is at liberty to speculate upon, nobody else can. This remains to be seen.

The Bundesarchiv says the caption is either "with or on the material" and would answer whether these are Hood or PoW shells. Besides we have Busch's description of precisely what is seen.

Reading Schmalenbach in the KTB the portside 4.1 inch crews retreated to the protection of the starboard side whilst Hood was firing at PG, and the only time we see film or stills of PoW's continuing fight is after the shells have stopped being fired at PG. That is because the photographer and film crew are on the portside recording the victory, and not on the starboard side to record these supposedly accurate shots from PoW's Y turret. They were recorded when they happened 10 minutes before. The portside gun crews were able to loose a few shots at PoW, because there was no incoming fire and the Propaganda Kompanie went to portside for the same reason.



All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:38 pm

Hello everybody,

once established that the wrong photo captions are not written by Lagemann himself (leaving the unproductive above insinuations apart as everyone can go to Bundesarchiv),
Wadinga wrote: "....the only time we see film or stills of PoW's continuing fight is after the shells have stopped being fired at PG..."
of course. What's the meaning of the above post ? Can Mr.Wadinga elaborate a bit ?
Enemy was always on the port side of the German ships... not really a new evidence. So what ? We know the film is "cut and paste" by Propaganda Compagnie. No doubt about the Hood (post-)explosion scene (when PoW fires her guns) being recorded after Hood exploded, I guess... thus when no 15" shell was fired anymore.


In the meantime, can he please finally acknowledge what I already explained him several times ? In no way the splashes we see in the film can be from Hood, as Hood had already gone after 6:03 and the film shows Bismarck firing aft of her (obviously port) beam (download/file.php?id=3251), that is impossible before her turn and while the range closure rate was steady and very high.

Can he propose a different battlemap (without using the already proven wrong Schmalenbach's one) ? I would say no, as he prefers to repeat again and again here his wrong claims without daring to answer Antonio's reconstruction refinement in the right thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424)...


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)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:22 pm

One of the problems we have revolves around a lack of provenance regarding the source of -- and in some cases the actual content of -- material held in the German archives. Regarding still and film photography, and particularly imagery displayed for public consumption during the war, one might best approach the material with a healthy skepticism, as mis-captioning, etc. for various reasons was quite common, both deliberately and accidentally, on both sides.

In the case of reproductions, it is important, I think, to approach as closely as possible to the original files, which in the cases of film and photography, would suggest close examination of the original negatives. Having spent many years in the darkroom -- developing a skill-set now entirely obsolete -- I can tell you that there is often a fair amount of artistic licence imposed upon images intended for display, the negative, etc. as the old analogy goes, serving as the metaphorical musical 'score', to which the print represents the 'performance'. So distortions, whether deliberate or accidental, are common, and in some cases even celebrated.

Before one attempts to extract too much information from the photography, one must (or at least should) make a real effort to examine the original negatives. These represent, in the case of the film, the only reliable source regarding timing, etc., as video conversions are notoriously unreliable with regard to preserving the validity of elapsed time. One must know what the likely frame rate was -- itself somewhat variable due to the spring-loaded motors used in most cameras of the time -- and in effect 'count frames' to determine timing. Examination of the original negatives, if focal length were known, would enable a very precise estimation of range to subject. But a 'cropped' film reproduced on video can at best only represent, and is really intended only to represent, an approximate version of the truth. The same is true of the still photography, although in the case of roll-form (usually 35mm) film, only the sequence of exposures is determinate, and then only if the film-strip is reasonably intact (which, for mechanical reasons, it usually is...

So far as I know, this research at the archives has not yet been done, or -- if it has been done -- the results have never been made generally available. So far as the film is concerned, we might have to move quickly, as I suspect much of this will soon be digitized with the original negatives thereafter being discarded. Unless extreme measures are taken, much of the detailed information needed for forensic analysis will be lost in the digitizing process.

So far as the driving band issue is concerned, material already posted here would seem to indicate that the driving band SEAT would seem to be single in British projectiles, whilst often being multiple in German bullets. It is difficult to really establish, particularly in poor-quality reproductions, whether a driving band which appears multiple on an intact projectile really carries a multiple seat.

Again, without attempting to over-do the issue -- I'd remind participants to make concerted efforts not to employ language which can be interpreted as offensive or belligerent.

Bill Jurens.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by dunmunro » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:06 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:47 pm
pgollin wrote: "No. Your claim was rubbish"
No, the above post is an insult.

"pgollin" can go and complain against McMullen for his (correct) choice to show PoW gunnery performances, excluding the local salvos. :lol:




Btw, I have modified the "annoying table" to include the local salvos (this was and still is methodologically incorrect) to satisfy the request of so many forum members here. We know their timing from the PoW GAR, from photo NH69731 (salvo 19) and from the PG film (salvos 20 and 21). Adding 3 salvos, delivering only 4 shots and evaluating that the salvo 21 was fired at around 06:04:00, we get this not less annoying table:


PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparson_with local salvos.jpg


PoW still fires in a way that cannot be defined "poor" from average effective RoF viewpoint, fully in line with Bismarck, delivering more shells to Bismarck than vice-versa.
What a surprise!


Bye, Alberto
59 / 11 = ~5.4 rnds/min and shell weight = ~3900kg/min. The table still ignores secondary output and the loss of output between Y turret ceasing fire due to ammo feed problems and ceasefire ordered from Leach, but it is closer to a comparative output than before (with the aforementioned math corrections).

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:56 pm

Hello everybody,

I'm both exhausted and very disappointed:
Dunmunro wrote: "59 / 11 = ~5.4 rnds/min"
While I have just answered to a similar approximation very recently here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=165#p82455), in that case (Bismarck) it was a matter of decimals.
I would have expected however that someone who spent much time studying the PoW GAR could have understood the formulas of the correct methodology used by McMullen (not by me) to calculate the effective RoF (thus allowing to calculate the effective # shells/minute (7), not the actual # of shells/minute 5,4)), obviously excluding the very first salvo and excluding the turret(s) not bearing (as the latter have nothing to do with gunnery performance, being a consequence of the tactical decisions taken by the commanding officer).


The table including the local salvos is methodologically incorrect (thus it was not proposed in the PoW GAR) because "inter alia" it includes 1) the delay of the Y turret to take on control and to re-start firing + 2) the theoretical possibility that a gun able to fire could not actually do it at salvo 21 due to the ammo feed problem (thus the assumption of 6 ordered shots, that could have been only 5). Both have nothing to do with the achieved average RoF of the ship while really in action, before Capt.Leach decision to disengage.
It shows, however, that even with these negative factors, basically the two ships had a comparable effective RoF.


Please, may I kindly ask to everybody to take the time needed to study and to read explanations before answering ? Thanks in advance.



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: 1965
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:56 pm

Hello Fellow Contributors,
In the meantime, can he please finally acknowledge what I already explained him several times ?
As in the case of allotting any value whatsoever to the mathematical technique of the Tiresome Table (and variants) we must again agree to differ. Saying the photographs of Die Letze Granate von Hood can't be what the witnesses say they were, based merely on their incompatibility with one speculative attempt to recreate Bismarck's track is an invalid argument. They show what they show. If the track does not conform it is because it is wrong.

It may be that negatives of Langemann's photographs exist, perhaps with his original annotations, again only the extremely reticent (on this subject alone) Mr Bonomi can answer, but apparently prefers not to. He was, at one time extremely expansive on the subject of Langemann and the Propaganda Kompanie and the Leica 35mm camera used for the stills. Now although he has handled the material and knows whether the annotation is likely to be from eye witness Langemann or a nameless archiver, he refuses point blank to divulge this information. I draw one obvious conclusion, others may draw their own, which could be the same as mine.
Can Mr.Wadinga elaborate a bit?
Surely it clear enough?
Reading Schmalenbach in the KTB the portside 4.1 inch crews retreated to the protection of the starboard side whilst Hood was firing at PG, and the only time we see film or stills of PoW's continuing fight is after the shells have stopped being fired at PG. That is because the photographer and film crew are on the portside recording the victory, and not on the starboard side to record these supposedly accurate shots from PoW's Y turret. They were recorded when they happened 10 minutes before. The portside gun crews were able to loose a few shots at PoW, because there was no incoming fire and the Propaganda Kompanie went to portside for the same reason.
Neither the Port side 4.1 crews or the PK people were on the port side when anyone was effectively firing at PG. The latter filmed Bismarck firing and Hood's shells landing on the starboard side of PG. PoW's early shots were so far over they don't even appear in the frame. When Hood began to burn, and her fire proved ineffectual, they felt a bit braver and ventured out onto the portside filming perhaps Hood's final explosion and PoW's retreat (sorry, temporary retreat) the 4.1s adding a few shells at the shorter range as Schmalenbach reports . Since the PK people filmed PoW's salvo 18 falling so short, as seen from the port side, how could they be on the starboard side, seeing another supposed Y turret local salvo landing just over Prinz Eugen? The simple answer is they didn't, because nobody anywhere, British or German ever saw or reported these "rather wild" shots land.

It ahs been said:
So far as the film is concerned, we might have to move quickly, as I suspect much of this will soon be digitized with the original negatives thereafter being discarded. Unless extreme measures are taken, much of the detailed information needed for forensic analysis will be lost in the digitizing process.
Given the international reputation of the Moderator and his illustrious co-authors I would hope the Bundesarchiv would be receptive to any suggestions he might be prepared to make to preserve the value of this outstandingly valuable piece of history. Surely no-one would "Bin" the Mona Lisa merely because they had scanned it? I would have hoped the Bundesarchiv would have extended the use of any material and the fullest co-operation to the authors of Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History.

All the best

wadinga

All the best

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

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

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:40 pm

Hello everybody,

I will answer and provide the final value add on the Bismarck Denmark Strait battle photos and film when my Bismarck 3 books will be published with Robert Gehringer on 2020, 2021 and 2022 ... just like I am doing for the Tirpitz, ... where 4 books out of 5 are out and the feedback's received so far speak for themselves about the quality we will be able to deliver.

http://bismarck-tirpitz.com/?lang=en

At that time, ... everybody will be able to read the proper photo captions and realize the many photos ( some never published by anybody so far ) ... that will describe this battle in details.

Meanwhile I like to read and evaluate everything the many authors ( out of which some asked my personal help and used my battle map ) will write about the Bismarck, ... the Operation Rheinubung, ... and the Denmark Strait battle of course.

I will intentionally not comment on the current photo captions I have read on archives and books, ... in many cases even in conflict among themselves, ... and I leave to the readers the judgement about the final work results.

The readers do have anyhow a good and valid preview on my simple December 2005 Denmark Strait battle article for Storia Militare, ... still the state of the art about this battle photos and map correlation.

I take the occasion to congratulate my friend Alberto Virtuani for the very accurate work he has done on the firing comparison, ... that in my personal opinion is better than the work done by Adm Santarini, ... that unfortunately used incorrect battle timing references, ... while Alberto used the correct ones and applied the correct formulas.

Bye Antonio
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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3567
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:02 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "They show what they show. If the track does not conform it is because it is wrong."
No comment. More probably, captions are wrong... Track is correct and determined by photos (as the Baron, Schmalenbach and Rower determined after having seen the PG film: go here to discuss (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424) if still trusting Schmalenbach original map.

Wadinga wrote: "Neither the Port side 4.1 crews or the PK people were on the port side when anyone was effectively firing at PG."
Sure. So what ?

Wadinga wrote: "PoW's early shots were so far over they don't even appear in the frame"
Pure speculation. By chance the film concentrated on 2 Hood shells, forgetting to film PoW rapid salvos (2 per minute) fired at Bismarck.... Come on, let's be serious, not inventing non-existing Hood's shells landing at 6:04, while we see Bismarck firing aft of her beam. PoW GAR demonstrates that range was closing at a very high rate in the early stage of the battle, and this is impossible with Bismarck on corse 270°.

Wadinga wrote: "Since the PK people filmed PoW's salvo 18 falling so short, as seen from the port side, how could they be on the starboard side, seeing another supposed Y turret local salvo landing just over Prinz Eugen? "
The film only shows salvo 20 and 21. Salvo 19 (not 18) is in a photo....Btw, does Mr.Wadinga know that there was surely more than one photographer on board PG ? (Antonio will discuss this fact in detail in his book, showing the exact position where the photos are taken from....)


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)

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by paul.mercer » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:27 pm

Gentlemen,
I have just had another look at Tarrent’s book on the KGV class ships and it appears that from the outset he was not particularly impressed with them in comparison with either Bismarck or Tirpitz particularly on a one on one fight.
He makes a number of comments on PoW’s readiness in the engagement with Bismarck for instance
80% of her crew had never stepped on a warships deck and the last draft of 350 consisted of ordinary seamen and boys
PoW had barely a 7 week workup during which time several defects went unattended to and
Mc Mullen and the Vickers-Armstong technicians had many problems ‘with the interlocking systems and other defects’ whilst Bismarck had a thorough work up which apparently included full power turns and had several returns to have any defects sorted out.
Because of the shortage of new capital ships PoW was entered for service even though Capt Leach has reservations about her gun reliability.
During the run up to the battle, water flooded A turret and the men in the shell handling room were up to their ankles in water which cascaded down from the turret, hardly helping efficiency.
Now, I am not up to understanding all the technical details that have been expressed, but when comparing the output of the two ships in Bismarck we have a well worked up ship with confident officers and crew in PoW, we have a ship with 80% of its crew new to it, many probably frightened out of their lives as shells explode on the ship and around her in the water, malfunctioning guns only capable of firing a few shots, Hood blowing up in front of them, yet they still manage to work what guns they have and land three hits on Bismarck, one of them so important that it stops her commerce raiding and makes her head for port.
So in reality, although it was undoubtedly a serious defeat for the RN, surely it is rather unfair to compare the output of the two ships and their ability to score hits? Despite all the posts, would it not be fair to say that PoW didn't do too badly after all?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by dunmunro » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:57 pm

paul.mercer wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:27 pm
Gentlemen,
I have just had another look at Tarrent’s book on the KGV class ships and it appears that from the outset he was not particularly impressed with them in comparison with either Bismarck or Tirpitz particularly on a one on one fight.
This is OT here, but Tarrant seems to have been overly influenced by some earlier books covering WW2 battleships that used poor analysis of the KGV class and it's contemporaries and consequently inaccurately denigrated their capabilities.

If you want to open a new topic on it I'd be happy to discuss it further.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:50 am

Fellow Contributors,
once established that the wrong photo captions are not written by Lagemann himself (leaving the unproductive above insinuations apart as everyone can go to Bundesarchiv),
If only we could establish it...……..without being held to ransom.

Clearly anyone who wants to know whether it is Langemann's description on the photos saying they are Hood's shots, will have to go the Bundesarchiv themselves or buy Mr Bonomi's book to find out.
and I leave to the readers the judgement about the final work results.
Only apparently those who are prepared to pay.

[Comment deleted by moderator Jurens]
where 4 books out of 5 are out and the feedback's received so far speak for themselves about the quality we will be able to deliver.
[comment deleted by moderator Jurens]

All the best

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

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by northcape » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:43 am

dunmunro wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:57 pm
paul.mercer wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:27 pm
Gentlemen,
I have just had another look at Tarrent’s book on the KGV class ships and it appears that from the outset he was not particularly impressed with them in comparison with either Bismarck or Tirpitz particularly on a one on one fight.
This is OT here, but Tarrant seems to have been overly influenced by some earlier books covering WW2 battleships that used poor analysis of the KGV class and it's contemporaries and consequently inaccurately denigrated their capabilities.

If you want to open a new topic on it I'd be happy to discuss it further.
Although I like the book because of its exhaustive descriptions, it is not well self-researched at all. E.g. entire sentences are just copied from G&D, I'm surprised that Tarrant did not get sued for that.

BTW, I think the OT parts remain the only things of interest and substance here.

Locked