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: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:56 am

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "This argument that hard turns were the principal agent of the 14-in quadruple turret's unreliability is unconvincing...."
...however, this is exactly (look at GARs and their timing vs the course of the ships) what happened to PoW on May 24 (1 quadruple turret) and to KGV on May27 (1 quadruple out of action and one close to be put out of action). Therefore, as I don't believe in coincidences, at this point in time this was "the" problem, making these ships severely unreliable, not the crew readiness or similar, as stated for PoW.

Whether the problem was solved later by mechanical changes and operative procedures, I cannot say, not being an expert of the North Cape battle, when DoY lost quite some output anyway (full turrets or single guns?).


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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3908
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by dunmunro » Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:07 am

Byron Angel wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:30 am
This argument that hard turns were the principal agent of the 14-in quadruple turret's unreliability is unconvincing to say the least. IIRC, in none of the surface engagements fought by KGV class battleships during the war did firing efficiency reach even 80 percent - which in itself was an unacceptable figure; someone please correct me if I am wrong on this point.

B
Output on KGV was ~95% for the first 30 mins.
Output on DoY was 79% for the first 30 salvos (~45mins), however these were all full gun salvos, and if firing 1/2 salvos (alternating guns) her output would have been higher (~85%)because one gun hoist failed at salvo 3 to salvo 73. There were no complete turret jams as per PoW and KGV.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:15 am

Hello everybody,
thanks to Mr.Dunmunro for the DoY details at the end of 1943, when adjustments had put in place, however:

he wrote: "Output on KGV was ~95% for the first 30 mins."
This is a pure speculation, repeated here once again. We do not have any data to estimate the "ordered shots" of KGV in the first 30 minutes.
Assuming Rodney 16" RoF as equal to KGV just to demonstrate this speculation is just a nonsense, as the 14" were designed to have a better RoF.
"Very smooth functioning" (KGV GAR narrative) means just "no major problem" (we have seen that a GAR does not list all the problems, only the ones that are significant) and can be related to 100%, 90% or even 80% of output efficiency.
Please see the whole thread here with the conclusion that it is impossible to get to a sure result for KGV for lack of data (and please do not re-open another old discussion): viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834



Please, try to acknowledge (or to counter with solid arguments, as nobody has done yet, repeating just useless "no" or agnostic "I know it's wrong, but I don't know what's right") what is discussed here instead of relentlessly changing the topic to avoid to admit these figures: download/file.php?id=3461


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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3908
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by dunmunro » Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:42 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:15 am
Hello everybody,
thanks to Mr.Dunmunro for the DoY details at the end of 1943, when adjustments had put in place, however:

he wrote: "Output on KGV was ~95% for the first 30 mins."
This is a pure speculation, repeated here once again. We do not have any data to estimate the "ordered shots" of KGV in the first 30 minutes.
Assuming Rodney 16" RoF as equal to KGV just to demonstrate this speculation is just a nonsense, as the 14" were designed to have a better RoF.
"Very smooth functioning" (KGV GAR narrative) means just "no major problem" (we have seen that a GAR does not list all the problems, only the ones that are significant) and can be related to 100%, 90% or even 80% of output efficiency.
Please see the whole thread here with the conclusion that it is impossible to get to a sure result for KGV for lack of data (and please do not re-open another old discussion): viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834



Please, try to acknowledge (or to counter with solid arguments, as nobody has done yet, repeating just useless "no" or agnostic "I know it's wrong, but I don't know what's right") what is discussed here instead of relentlessly changing the topic to avoid to admit these figures: download/file.php?id=3461


Bye, Alberto

My assessment of 95% output from 0848-0920 is based upon KGV's GAR and it's detailed description of lost output, and this is explained in the thread you linked to, as I am sure you are aware. It is not pure speculation at all unlike your numbers for Bismarck's output which have no basis whatsoever in the historical record. [underlining and bolding deleted WJJ]

Every lost round is detailed in KGV's GAR. Only ~19 individual lost rounds are stated outside of those lost when complete turrets failed, starting at 0920. I assessed that 7 of these lost rounds occurred in the first 30 minutes of the action. However, even if 10 occurred then KGV's output at 0920 would still be at ~95% because she had fired ~200 rnds at that point.

The GAR lists all requested rounds that failed to be fired, as I explained so patiently to you in the thread on POW and KGV's GARs.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:51 am

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "My assessment of 95% output from 0848-0920 is based upon KGV's GAR and it's detailed description of lost salvos...Every lost round is detailed in KGV's GAR"
[commentary deleted WJJ]

We have no solid idea of the KGV "ordered shots" key figure [underlining removed WJJ] to estimate RoF (even, no assumption is possible, except your [*]speculation, [*], of assuming 16" guns had the same RoF as 14" guns [*}).

GARs never list all failures, as in PoW detailed one, and your claim about KGV GAR being "fully detailed" is denied by the evident fact you were unable[ material deleted WJJ]to build a salvo table for KGV based on the scarce info we have.

Do you think McMullen GAR lists all failures ? A direct answer, please.

Please go to the[*] thread I have already linked (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834),[material deleted WJJ]


Bismarck "assumed" ordered shots proposed here (104 to 112) are very logic (based on film, photos and accounts) and in any case I told you to try your preferred figure (as I have done for KGV in the right thread viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834&start=30#p76102 before you gave up, proposing at least less incredible figures).

Any figure for "ordered shots" you will propose for Bismarck will not change any significant conclusion(download/file.php?id=3461) about the "effective" values, points 3) and 4) that are the significant ones to make such an "inconvenient" comparison.


Bye, Alberto

[Extensive redaction and rephrasing by editor. Deleted material indicated via asterisks... WJJ
"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: 362
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:39 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:26 pm

......... I was not referring to all the "minor" (when summed up, of course relevant) problems (most of them solved however in few salvos) happened during the first 18 salvos, but to the really "serious" one (at salvo 20) that, while turning very hard, caused an hinge tray to be buckled, jamming the shell ring (and putting out of action, had the battle lasted longer an entire quadruple turret for hours). Of course also this major problem may be considered one of the problems with interlocks as well... .....


.

Well you have now managed to totally confuse me. Having totally ignored the interlocks problem, once challenged you now acknowledge them !


ALL THIS whilst claiming to have a vitally important and detailed Vickers report which covers the gunnery issues ? [bolding deleted WJJ]

What does the Vickers report say about the interlocks issues (causes, short-term solutions, long-term solutions ?).

Your claims about the Vickers report seem at odds with your knowledge.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:44 am

Hello everybody,

[extensive deletion by moderator WJJ]
How many shots did PoW miss during the 9 minutes director controlled battle due to this "major" (interlock) problem (out of the total 19 missed shots) ?
[Commentary deleted moderator WJJ]

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: 821
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by paul.mercer » Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:32 pm

HMSVF Wrote:
But she was designed to fire 10 not 7 or 8. That she matched a ship armed with 8 guns (firing occasionally only 7) is all well and good but she didn't do as she was designed. I think this is all contextual. Yes she did well with the guns that she was able to service, yes with the 7 or 8 guns that she was able to fire she matched a ship armed with 8 guns (I believe that the 14 inch were designed for 2rpm, Navweaps has the German 15 inch as 2 to 3 rpm). In the context of how well did she fire at Denmark Strait, the net result was that she didn't operate as planned and it wasn't just down to drill error, which you rightly point out can occur in any vessel mounting large guns.
Gentlemen,
I'm not sure that i understand why Bismarck had a rate of fire of 2-3 rounds per min when the KGV's were only designed to have only 2 RPM, surely a ship firing a smaller and lighter shell should (in theory) be able to load and fire faster that a ship with larger and heavier shells,was this a design fault or something to do with the(apparently) complicated loading system of the Quad turret, if so surely the twin turret should have operated as a normal?

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:17 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:44 am

........ I guess a sincere answer to this "challenge" like: "I have no clue" (after having claimed that this was the major problem) would be very understandable and even quite dignifying from him... ......


Just to clarify, so the highly detailed and important Vickers gunnery report does not cover the interlocks issue ?

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:47 pm

Hello everybody,

"just to clarify"..., as Mr.pgollin came in raising this point of a "the major problem with interlocks", is he able to answer or not ?
"How many shots did PoW miss during the 9 minutes director controlled battle due to this "major" (interlock) problem (out of the total 19 missed shots) ?"
[Commentary deleted by moderator WJJ]

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: 654
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:43 pm

I have had to again make rather extensive deletions and editorial changes to various comments. I would ask participants to refrain from using emojis, bolding, all-caps or underlining in postings, as in most cases these add little or nothing to the discussion and only serve to inflame other participants, who often choose to use the same in retaliation. If emphasis is required for clarity, please try just using italics.

Some of the recent material has been almost unsalvageable. I have neither the time nor the energy to go through every post to remove or rephrase inflammatory commentary and, as mentioned before, should this continue, will simply commence deleting posts in their entirety, or if that becomes too much trouble, will resort to banning members entirely.

I would would remind members to retain backup copies of postings so that they may later repost revised and more constructively-phrased versions of totally deleted material.

Bill Jurens.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3908
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by dunmunro » Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:24 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:51 am
Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "My assessment of 95% output from 0848-0920 is based upon KGV's GAR and it's detailed description of lost salvos...Every lost round is detailed in KGV's GAR"
[commentary deleted WJJ]

We have no solid idea of the KGV "ordered shots" key figure [underlining removed WJJ] to estimate RoF (even, no assumption is possible, except your [*]speculation, [*], of assuming 16" guns had the same RoF as 14" guns [*}).



I hope the forum members will carefully consider the above statement and my response.


I will post a brief summary here of my methodology regarding KGV's output and how it was extracted from KGV's GAR.

Rodney fired 375 rounds and her GAR stated 77% output. Therefore 100% output = 375/.77 = 487 rnds. KGV had 10 guns versus Rodney's 9 and so KGV, if she had the same salvo rate, would have fired 1.11 x 487 = 541 rnds. KGV actually fired 335 rnds so we can estimate that her output was ~62%.

FAQ

Question: Did KGV and Rodney have similar salvo rates?

A: Yes, they were nearly identical. KGV's peak salvo rate was 1.7 salvos/minute for about 20 minutes (34 salvos when firing with type 284 radar ranging) as was Rodney's during a later part of the action. During the first 32 minutes KGV averaged ~1.5 salvos/minute while Rodney fired ~1.5 salvos/minute for the first 60 minutes.

Q: How do you know how many salvos KGV fired during the first 32 minutes and how many Rodney fired in the first 60 minutes?

A: KGV's GAR states that A turret jammed at 0920 after having fired an average of 23 rnds/gun. This indicates a minimum of 46 salvos ( or 1.44 salvos/minute) , and with allowances for some lost output as per the summary of lost output by cause, in her GAR, indicates a likely 49 salvos fired at 0920 when A turret jammed. 49 salvos/32 minutes = 1.53 salvos/minute. At ~0948, after having fired 92 salvos Rodney's AFCT failed, and and this notation gives the the average salvo rate for the first 60 minutes and it works out to 92 salvos/60 minutes or 1.53 salvos/minute. At 0920, after 33 minutes of firing, Rodney had fired 45 salvos or 1.4 salvos minute. Rodney's salvo rate increased as the range declined.

Q: Did you produce a graphical table showing KGV's output during various stages of the battle?

A: Yes, and I'll show it again here for reference:

Image

Q: Is the above table 100% accurate?

A: It is very accurate at salvo 49 with maybe a +/- 1% variation but after that it becomes progressively more difficult to reconcile exact times with exact salvos.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:51 am

Hello everybody,

I will not loose my time in order to answer again and again to Mr.Dunmunro here, assuming KGV had the same RoF than the slow firing Rodney, confusing peak and average RoF values, and imagining that a GAR can list all (even the minor) failures (when we know PoW GAr doasn'ìt address at least 6 out of 19 failures).
There is a dedicated thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834) where all the above have been discussed and at the end Mr.Dunmunro had to finally give up not being able to demonstrate anything (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834 , viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834&start=45#p76416). His above table (proposed years ago and denied piece by piece already) is only a fantasy exercise, not being supported by any solid evidence.


I repeat again that this is not the right thread to discuss KGV firing, therefore we should stay on this thread topic, commenting (if needed) on the values we have for PoW and Bismarck (download/file.php?id=3461)


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:23 am, 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)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1398
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Herr Nilsson » Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:47 am

Aside from the IMHO questionable methodology of Alberto's table. The RoF ist a measure of what? What does it tell us about what?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:24 am

Hello everybody,

possibly questionable... but which is the "question" please ?

The RoF is a very common measurement when speaking gunnery. It may be significant o not, but it is a parameter that helps to evaluate how fast a ship was able to fire her guns. Once accepted, we may discuss its meaningfulness.


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)

Locked