PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1963
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:25 pm

Hello Fellow Contributors,

Once again Brooke is misquoted
but never 7 weeks gunnery practice "night and day".
"Latterly" at night he says ie not seven weeks of nights. And seven weeks is not seven months.

Also
April 1941

1st to 26th - The PRINCE OF WALES was at Scapa Flow carrying out working up exercises. Gunnery exercises were severely curtailed due to the continuing problems with the quadruple 14in turrets. The work up included checking radar performance and the calibration of air warning and fire control equipment.

27th - It was on this day that the last of her three turrets was accepted from Vickers Armstrong and practice drills with all her armament could commence.
So Y turret was not available for any "terrific Gunnery practice" until one month before Denmark Straits
May 1941

8th - Carried out Full Power Trials.

21st - Ship reported to CinC Home Fleet as ready for Fleet service.

(The PRINCE OF WALES had had less than two months working up, which was completely inadequate considering all the new systems and the fact that 80% of her crew were Hostilities Only and had never been on a ship before. Further she still had major problems with her main armament and 100 Vickers Armstrong staff were embarked attempting to fix the problems. The BISMARCK in contrast had worked up over a period of five months and was fully operational and efficient)
Guess who posted this- Antonio Bonomi :D

And also we had
Here is Lindemann again from the KTB 28th April one day after PoW actually got Y turret working:

"Ship is personnel-wise and material-wise fully ready for action, and provisioned for 3 months. Herewith, the first chapter in the ship's life since the commissioning 24th August 1940, is successfully completed. The goal was reached after 8 months, being over the target date by only 14 days."

I can't be bothered to type any more but visit the KTB for the full details of just how ready Bismarck was. Totally. And then they had a further month of training. In high tech vessels like state of the art warships there are bits and pieces that need sorting. That is normal and a continous process.
4 in total instead of 3... statistically...
Only a statistician without comprehension would think it is as easy to hit at 27,000yds with no rangefinder as at 15,000yds, but the commentator was a gunnery officer not a statistician.

All the best

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

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:28 pm

Regarding these 'missing' files, It would be, I think, appropriate to at least post the archival file numbers for the material in question so that other researchers can recover and review the files themselves. If I am provided copies of the original files, I will be glad to try to prepare a precis of the content. This should not infringe on copyright issues at all.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3565
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:50 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Once again Brooke is misquoted"
No, the misinterpretation is not mine. I have never said it was Brooke. it's enough to listen at McMullen's IWM interview (https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80010751) to hear how long gunnery training lasted for the "poor green" ship....



Regarding the gunnery comparison, nobody needs to have the "Vickers" report (that is mainly a description of the genesis of the design of the 14" turrets and its technical description in comparison with the other mountings built by Vickers), whose only relevant points were already posted here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834&p=76840&hilit= ... rge#p76840) by me and Mr.Cag.
No other info whatsoever will be provided here, because they are irrelevant in this comparison. If you trust me, fine, if not, I can't help with this. I hope it's clear now. Full Stop.



All "comparison" data listed below are available on official documentation, free for everybody (but ignored in almost all books written after, until the gunnery analysis of Adm.Santarini (download/file.php?id=3420), , to justify Capt.Leach decision to disengage, a decision that may be judged right (Santarini) or wrong (IMO)):

1) PoW effective RoF was slightly less than Bismarck's one (1.4 vs 1.6 salvo/minute)
2) PoW effective # shells delivered / minute was higher than Bismarck (7 shells/minute vs 6.4)
3) PoW hit the enemy less time(3 minutes) after open fire than Bismarck (3.5 -4 minutes)
4) PoW hit the enemy form a much longer distance (from around 4000 yards more)
5) PoW was handicapped by having only the fore turrets bearing for the first 8 salvos, and despite that, she hit first.
6) PoW hit only 3 times vs the 5 hits achieved by Bismarck
7) No ship was able to hit enemy when maneuvering in emergency
8) The 3 hits of PoW infliceted more serious damages to BS than viceversa (while BS was devastating against Hood)
9) Hood was by far the worse gunnery platform of the DS battle: no hits, max 10 salvos (Schmalenbach) in 8 minutes action (possibly with pauses).

All the above data/comments are obviously dependent on luck (e.g. a salvo may be a straddle and not hit, a hit may be catastrophic or irrelevant), as the moderator has wisely suggested, except the effective data (1 and 2) that depended only on the own gunnery rapidity and efficiency of the ship. These figures are in the "tiresome but apparently very annoying table" below.

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen_rounded.jpg
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen_rounded.jpg (56.43 KiB) Viewed 885 times

I'm ready to discuss the above numerical and quantifiable facts, not much interested in the personal considerations of randomly picked participants to the action.


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
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 » Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:30 am

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

just for the record, ... here you have what Geoffrey Brooke wrote on his book " Alarm Starboard " at page 49 :


Geoffrey_Brooke_Alarm_Starboard_page_49.jpg
Geoffrey_Brooke_Alarm_Starboard_page_49.jpg (58.29 KiB) Viewed 866 times



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 )

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 » Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:40 am

Gentlemen,
Alberto wrote:The truth is possibly in the middle between PoW GAR (outlining Vickers' guns problems) and Vickers-Armstrong report (outlining PoW crew errors).
As it seems that no-one is going to give ground on this subject would it not be wise to accept what Alberto wrote (above) and perhaps also accept that while PoW was not entirely battle worthy her crew did their best under what must have been terrifying circumstances for most of them?
Perhaps in retrospect, it would have been better to send out KGV with Hood instead?

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 » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:26 am

Hello everybody,

@ Paul Mercer,

you wrote :
Gentlemen,

Alberto wrote : The truth is possibly in the middle between PoW GAR (outlining Vickers' guns problems) and Vickers-Armstrong report (outlining PoW crew errors).

As it seems that no-one is going to give ground on this subject would it not be wise to accept what Alberto wrote (above) and perhaps also accept that while PoW was not entirely battle worthy her crew did their best under what must have been terrifying circumstances for most of them ?
I agree with your wise and well balanced suggestion above.

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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1963
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:16 pm

Fellow Contributors,
All the "comparison" data listed below are available on official documentation available to everybody
There is no "official documentation" for Bismarck's firing duration, only assumptions. If this Tedious Table is going to be reproduced over and over simply to fill up space on the pages and push observations based on reality off the current page, it should at least be required to be annotated as being based on assumptions not factual data.
7) No ship was able to hit enemy when maneuvering in emergency.
PoW ceased fire whilst doing it PG appears to have voluntarily wasted shells by firing when her battery was "displaced" from the target, but the TT assumes Bismarck did so as well based on no evidence whatsoever.
just for the record, ... here you have what Geoffrey Brooke wrote on his book " Alarm Starboard " at page 49 :
Earlier I observed that a photograph of a whole page meant that nothing could accidentally be left out.

Further down p49 (outside the area selected for reproduction) "Just for the record".
Our 14" guns, only the second examples to be built, gave a lot of trouble. In particular the loading machinery was entirely new, including the innovation of a "vehicle" that ran on rails on the bottom of the turret, receiving shells from the fixed structure and locking itself onto the revolving part for transfer.
And later
With all this to contend with, and a large proportion of untried manpower to boot, the task of welding the ship's company into a fit state to fight for its life would have taken at least eight months in peacetime.
All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3565
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:37 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: " it should at least be required to be annotated as being based on assumptions not factual data"
... the only (very conceivable) assumption significantly affecting the effective" figures is the fire action duration of 14 minutes.
Any alternative ? I don't think so, based on official documentation. Still waiting however any different (but still credible) "interpretation".....

Wadinga wrote: "PoW ceased fire whilst doing it PG appears to have voluntarily wasted shells......but the TT assumes Bismarck did so as well based on no evidence whatsoever."
No, PoW fired while maneuvering, both during the avoiding maneuver and at the start of the turn away until 6:02 (see PoW salvo plot). She "interrupted her fire" only when the the hard turn away caused the director to be obscured, but re-opened fire (in local control) while still maneuvering.
PG surely fired during turns (see Jasper) without any doubt.
1) We know Germans could fire their guns while turning and experienced it during training (see Thorsten posts on this thread),
2) we have the PG film clearly showing Bismarck firing during her second turn + photos showing her firing at almost any time after 6:03,
3) nobody noticed or accounted that the sole Bismarck among all the ships ceased fire while turning,
therefore the claim she did is totally unsupported by evidences. Sorry, but insisting on a clearly unfounded statement will not help discussion to move on in any way...


Despite all troubles linked to 14" turrets design/teething problems (Brooke) or to crew errors (Mr.Barben from Vickers) the actual data listed as statistics here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82554#p82549) don't change, showing that PoW fired her main guns fairly well compared to Bismarck.


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)

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

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:06 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:32 pm

... actually there is nothing stopping anybody from going to the archives and transcribing himself them, risking anyway to infringe the copyright, as also the content is copyrighted and only small parts can be transcribed, not the full file, without permission.

Vickers-Armstrong manager report (including letters and attachments) is a 32 pages (very dense typewritten) file. Somebody here may have enough time to transcribe them. .....


1: What is the reference number (and what are the page numbers) of the report ?

2: As noted by others there is NO restriction by crown copyright (or any other copyright) on the transcription of the Vickers report.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3565
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:30 pm

Hello everybody,
I have already written: "No other info whatsoever will be provided here, because they are irrelevant in this comparison. If you trust me, fine, if not, I can't help with this. I hope it's clear now. Full Stop."
All relevant info (very few indeed related to this current high level discussion) are here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834&p=76840&hilit= ... rge#p76840), kindly provided for free by myself and Mr.Cag (who cannot be accused to have been a "prosecutor" at any time...). Enjoy your reading !


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)

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

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:51 am

.

a: You still haven't posted the archive reference, and page numbers.

b: IF you want, you may send me the document and I will transcribe into a word document. I can then post them as pdf s on another board, or send them to someone on this board to post on their own internet site.

Easy.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3565
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:52 am

Hello everybody,

[comment deleted by moderator Jurens]
I have already written: "No other info whatsoever will be provided here, because they are irrelevant in this comparison. If you trust me, fine, if not, I can't help with this. I hope it's clear now. Full Stop."
Easy (and hopefully) clear. Enjoy your reading here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834&p=76840&hilit= ... rge#p76840): I'm available to explain what may be a bit too difficult or not fully explained there, but in another thread, specific to PoW gunnery events, not here.


All info related to this very thread's topic were already kindly provided for free by myself and Mr.Cag and they don't affect in ANY way ANY of the figures/conclusions posted here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=255#p82549) .

The above are the relevant info in this discussion, but I see such a discussion is carefully avoided, as not very convenient, showing (based on what is already available to everybody) how (good) was PoW shooting vs Bismarck's from a quantitative viewpoint, not based on the repetition of novel accounts....


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)

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

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:50 pm

>

You seem to have not answered my post ;
"a: You still haven't posted the archive reference, and page numbers.

b: IF you want, you may send me the document and I will transcribe into a word document. I can then post them as pdf s on another board, or send them to someone on this board to post on their own internet site.

Easy."
.


.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3565
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:42 pm

Hello everybody,

"pgollin" seems not to read my answers....
I have written: "No other info whatsoever will be provided"
I can translate this in more plain words: "I'm afraid I will not provide him any answer to his questions re. "Vicker's" document" for the reasons I have already explained (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=240#p82541).



I'm more and more sure now that these begs and polemics are carefully kept alive only to avoid discussing (or being left without any answer about) the very topic of the thread and the facts I have posted here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=255#p82549), showing PoW gunnery performances compared to Bismarck (and Hood) based on evidences, not only on (repeated) novel accounts.


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)

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

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:28 pm

.

I think we can ALL take the appropriate meaning from Alberto's refusal to allow the examination of his supposed document.

.

Locked