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: 3330
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 14, 2019 3:22 pm

Hello everybody,
Paul Mercer wrote: "...as PoW had 10 against 8 would it not be logical to assume that her rate of shells fired (until her guns started to play up) would initially be higher than Bismarck?"
Of course you are right. However A1 gun immediately failed, being responsible of 8 out of 19 total failed shots. Other 8 failures, according to PoW GAR + Mr.Barben (Vickers-Armstrong) report are uniformly distributed in salvos from 11 to 18 (1 per salvo). The last 3 are not determined.

Thus it's incorrect to think that PoW effective RoF declined significantly only toward the end of the engagement. Her output efficiency was always lower than Bismarck but not so much lower.


As you can see in the table below, showing average RoF values (meaningful or meaningless as anyone can consider them), the effective RoF of PoW was 1.4 salvos per minute while Bismarck's one was 1.6 salvos per minute. When adjusted by the fact that PoW had 10 guns vs 8, you get an effective number of shells delivered per minute that is 7.0 for PoW and 6.4 for Bismarck.

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen_rounded.jpg
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen_rounded.jpg (56.43 KiB) Viewed 350 times

All these "effective" figures are independent from any "assumption" except the battle duration, that is clearly written in PG reports and that we can assume to be the same for Bismarck as well, except there are solid evidences showing the contrary.


@all,
I will not answer again to provocations like "flat earth theorist" as they speak for themselves, when someone is unable to counter arguments (e.g. Bismarck open and cease fire).


Bye, Alberto



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)

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:31 pm

regarding shell output of Bismarck

there are different phases within the battle.

shooting in (Einschießen) against Hood
fire for effect against Hood
target change to POW
Shooting in (einschießen) against POW
fire for effect against POW

POW turns and makes smoke the smoke accumulates in the line of sight the target came out of sight several times.
Bismarck turns

Typically any new target and any new aquiring of a target requires definately a new shooting in; the turning of enemy ship and turning of own ship possibly require a new shooting in (Einschießen) especially if the target was not surrounded by shell impacts, so the shell output is likely to drop for these times.

Additionally the character of battle changed, it has decisive charakter in the beginning thus requiring full commitment,
but when POW makes the 160 degrees turn a full commitment is no longer required and may be replaced by slow shooting to conserve shells.


The 93 Shells fired in about 10 minutes or less are a substantial share of armor piercing shells on board of Bismarck
out of the roundabout 1000 shells on board - (one third AP,one third semi AP,one third HE).

They were on the farthes point away from own bases, they had battle damage and they can expect ongoing battles as they couldnt shake off the british cruisers. They will miss every shell fired without need.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by paul.mercer » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:49 pm

wadinga wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:06 pm
Hello Paul,
would it not be logical to assume


logical but uninformed by evidence. That is the problem with trying to derive complex theoretical conclusions from the crudest mathematical analysis, ie 10 is more than 8. Or dividing the number of shells fired by a guessed duration of firing.

There are no "assumptions" else than firing action duration in the table affecting the "effective" values
Flat Earth theorists believe the earth logically cannot be spherical because it looks flat. They adopt simplistic elements of science to camouflage their previously-informed intuition as if it is fact and "proven".

You might try asking someone in possession of information about the extensive reports produced on the failures of PoW's guns, about why PoW's 10 guns cannot fire faster than 8.

But then you already had that offer in September last year, have you forgotten?

You said:
In an earlier post I asked if this 'failure to fire' was common amongst WW2 ships, and apparently it was. What still puzzles me is what is the reason for these failures (PoW we know about)
You seemed to be quite familiar with why 10 guns might not be better than 8 then. "PoW we know about" :D

and Alberto very co-operatively answered:
We all know McMullen GAR, giving some explanation for the failures.
There is also a long memo from Mr.Wilkinson (manager in Vickers and later chief designer) to S.Roskill (dated 1965) that explains the problems with 14" turrets and provides additional info about guns failures in PoW during the Bismarck operation (based on the report of Mr.Barben, Vickers foreman in charge of guns on board of PoW during the operation).
The latter is protected by copyright, therefore, if you are interested, please send me a private message with your personal mail address and I will provide you the relevant parts of the memo (already discussed at length on this very thread).
Which showed he is familiar with why PoW's guns fired at much less than optimum performance.

All the best

wadinga
Thanks Wadinga,
Yes, I must have forgotten about that post - it must be old age, thanks again for reminding me!
But what about the availability of trained personnel for heavy ships at the start of WW2 that I mentioned?

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:23 pm

For what it's worth, I don't feel that the sample size in the Denmark Strait action is large enough to determine with any degree of reliability whether one ship or another was shooting "better" that day. Had the ships, for whatever reasons, fired target practices on successive days the day to day variation of a single ship probably would have been about equal to the differences, real or imaginary, being fought over now between the two ships firing on a single day. There were clearly some problems on both sides, again, in my opinion, largely deriving from lack of experience and the unreliability of some rather new and fairly untested equipment, but there is really not enough information to come to a firm determination as to who might have had the better gunnery. That sort of comparison requires rather extensive testing under highly-controlled conditions.

The effects of trunnion tilt, at least as expressed here, would seem to be a bit misplaced. This sort of effect is important, but only when the plane of rotation is perpendicular to the gun line. The greatest problems seem to occur when the effects of roll and pitch are intermingled, as when one is firing over the quarters. It is (or was) very common in such situations to find the control mechanisms effectively 'loosing the bubble' and feeding the guns erroneous solutions. (So far as gunnery is concerned, if you can fire more-or-less directly off your own beam whilst the enemy cannot, you can gain a significant advantage.) The same sort of thing, i.e. loss of effective fire control, also tends (or tended) to occur during rapid turns; although the gyroscopic stabilizers (if used) still tend, after some lag, to maintain a stable vertical, the system as a whole often has a hard time figuring out what proportion of the change in the vertical vector is gravitational, i.e. due to roll, or due to centripetal/centrifugal forces due to the change in direction. Aircraft simulators work the same way -- they can simulate fore-and-aft accelerations by tilting the cockpit component forward or backward, whilst of course, blocking or distorting one's field of view so the tilt, or lack thereof, is no longer obvious. At any rate, unless the turns involved were fairly steady, the chances of hitting during a turn were probably negligible.

Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3860
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by dunmunro » Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:25 pm

paul.mercer wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:33 am
Gentlemen,
Once again i am going to throw my self open to your experience, only two questions this time!
the first is the rate of shells fired by both ships, as PoW had 10 against 8 would it not be logical to assume that her rate of shells fired (until her guns started to play up) would initially be higher than Bismarck?
Also, it was mentioned that with the RN having to compete against other services for personnel, I believe that until the mid 1920's the RN had more battleships and battle cruisers than most of the world put together, all with heavy guns, so surely many of those serving then would either still either be in place or could be recalled if still in the call up age limits,so is here really that much different to the loading and firing procedure between say a 15" and a 14" gun whether the turret has two or four guns, as it does not seem logical to put entirely an 'green crew in any turret without having some experiences men also there?
It is telling that PoW's lead radar officer, Paddon, was Canadian - the RN had to raid Cdn universities to find men with the skill sets to work with radar. The mid 1920s was ~16 years prior to May 1941. Many of the best gunnery and armament specialists would be retired, overage, or working in protected occupations within the UK's industrial plant or they had emigrated to the Dominions. In May 1941 the UK was already scraping the bottom of the barrel for skilled personal and unlike 1914 the RN no longer had priority access to skilled personnel because of the needs of the RAF, Army and the more technical branches of industry. Vickers and other employers who produced advanced weaponry were desperately short of skilled personnel.

In 1914 only the navy had long base RFs and advanced FC computers - In 1940 there were hundreds, if not thousands of Army and RAF installations whose personnel were using similar gear for radar EW and radar and optically controlled AA fire.

A look at UK manpower resources:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/U ... con-5.html

and we see that the RN went from 113k personnel in June 1938 to 270k in June 1940. Inevitably skill levels decline during this kind of growth.

more on this:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/U ... on-15.html

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by paul.mercer » Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:47 am

Hi Dunmunro,
Thanks for the info, I see your point!

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by HMSVF » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:25 pm

paul.mercer wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:47 am
Hi Dunmunro,
Thanks for the info, I see your point!
T/O.

Isn’t there a difference between firing and effective firing?

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:29 pm

Esteemed Contributors,

Once again this thread is burdened with repetition of the Tiresome Table, but at last its promoter begins to prevaricate about its manifest manipulation of mathmatics:
All these "effective" figures are independent from any "assumption" except the battle duration
Since the statistical "analysis" such as it is depends on the duration as a critical mathematical operator that is as good as an admission the process is worthless.
that is clearly written in PG reports


Since we do not have the equivalent to the GAR for PG we have nothing of the sort. Besides
we can assume to be the same for Bismarck as well,
Of course we can't, there is no evidence from Bismarck at all. There is no argument to support Bismarck open and cease fire times and nothing to suggest consistency of firing rate in between, only meaningless assumptions generated in support of a fabricated alternative to real history .

Thorsten has outlined the German firing procedure, contrasting periods of slow firing (Einschießen) compared with fire for effect, emphasizing those periods when slow shooting might be expected, specifically when wasting ammunition would occur if firing continued at the same rate throughout turns.

Bill has said, based on his considerable knowledge:
At any rate, unless the turns involved were fairly steady, the chances of hitting during a turn were probably negligible.
reinforcing the likelyhood of a reduction of firing during turns in Bismarck, thus generating a spurious "average" even if the duration assumptions were correct.

I would take issue with;
There were clearly some problems on both sides, again, in my opinion, largely deriving from lack of experience and the unreliability of some rather new and fairly untested equipment,
There is a single instance where evidence suggests a malfunction in Bismarck's main armament was significant. "Was that a misfire?" "That really ate into him" as the Baron records, indicating a single gun, solitary failure to fire compared with the extensive listing of misfires for PoW even on her glacially-slow firing rate. There are other minor instances of Bismarck's complex fire control system not operating as per designer/manufacturer hopes, but that is surely endemic in state of the art systems.
At any rate, unless the turns involved were fairly steady, the chances of hitting during a turn were probably negligible.
Or surely near-missing?

Thus one might also revisit the evidence-free assertion that the photos of shells landing close to PG and identified by the photographer and Busch as being the Last Shots from Hood, were from PoW's wayward last shots 10 minutes later, whilst turning hard with maximum heel and trunnion tilt and without the benefit of director control, and whose landing was seen by no-one in PoW.

All the Best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3330
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:06 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "...at last its promoter begins to prevaricate about its manifest manipulation of mathmatics:...the process is worthless...meaningless assumptions generated in support of a fabricated alternative to real history "
While not answering to the provocation implicit in the above mocking statements (I still hope someone will ask him to stop forever...),
the attempt to counter the table (download/file.php?id=3418) is failing once again, not proposing any credible alternative to the only relevant "assumption" (the one affecting the "effective" figures): that Bismarck firing action lasted around 14 minutes.

If anyone wants to propose, based on solid evidence, that Bismarck did not open fire at 05:55 (as written in the PG KTB for her) and did not cease fire at 06:09 (as "cease fire" order received by PG and as per the "last salvo" photo (download/file.php?id=3254), showing Bismarck between PG and PoW (as per Antonio's battlemap (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424) and Jasper account)), he can do it, in the appropriate threads, but this forum member here is only able to tirelessly repeat that the table is meaningless (while it is only evidently "annoying"), not able to propose any alternative parameter to be used (simply because there is no credible alternative at all, and he knows it very well)....


Wadinga wrote: "...emphasizing those periods when slow shooting might be expected...reinforcing the likelyhood of a reduction of firing during turns in Bismarck"
...unfortunately the PG film and several photos taken after 6:03 show Bismarck not having ceased fire at all, therefore Mr.Wadinga's "expectation" above is disappointed, being totally unsupported by any evidence.
Variations in the RoF of BS were surely present (as they were for PoW, btw) but they don't affect significantly the average values, that are meaningful and relevant for a comparison.



Lastly, this forum member repeats here above (once again) his "theory" that the splashes we see in the PG film are the ones from Hood (and/or PoW...) at an earlier stage of the battle, not having accepted yet that Bismarck was on course around 270° (as clearly visible from her gun barrels here download/file.php?id=3251) only after 6:03... No way to have him accepting this (obvious) fact, despite Antonio's detailed explanations that proved his alternative theory (Bismarck on 270° at 5:55) simply wrong.



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: 580
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:17 pm

A good deal of the validity of the table, at least as it seems to be being discussed here, would seem to revolve around its derivation of the rate of fire being based upon a fire duration of 14 minutes. Assuming that to be true -- and it may not be if, for example, one or both of the open fire and cease fire times had been transcribed incorrectly, and further assuming that the expenditure was really 93 bullets, one can indeed derive an average rate of fire of 93/14 = 6.64 rounds per minute (though the table seems to show 6.4).

Further assuming that that figure is of some value in reconstructing the events of 24 May -- and I remain to be firmly convinced of that -- one might consider that the rate of fire can be accurately derived subtracting the two figures, i.e. 0609 and 0555. But, insofar as the times are apparently recorded only to the nearest minute, the actual elapsed time -- again assuming no transcription or recording error -- can actually have ranged between 13 and 15 minutes, a difference of about 15%. Thus the actual range of possible (not necessarily probable...) values lies between 93/13 = 7.15 and 93/15 = 6.2 rounds per minute. Actually, as there is really, so far as I know, no precise written record of the state of Bismarck's guns when 'cease fire' was called, i.e. they may have been ready to fire instantaneously when the order was given, or they may have just discharged, things get even more complex. Assume for example that Bismarck's guns were loaded and ready to fire when cease fire was given, i.e. they were one second away from having the firing key closed. Had the cease fire order been given one second later than it was, the salvo would have been discharged and the number of bullets expended would have then been (presumably) 93+4 = 97. A few seconds later, had a second half-broadside taken place, the number of bullets fired might have been 93+8 = 101.

So our possible range of figures now stretches from 93/15 = 6.2 rounds per minute to 101/13 = 7.7 rounds per minute, a difference of (roughly) 20%. Is that too large to make useful analysis possible?

Comments, as always, welcome...

Bill Jurens

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by HMSVF » Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:23 pm

Bill Jurens wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:17 pm
A good deal of the validity of the table, at least as it seems to be being discussed here, would seem to revolve around its derivation of the rate of fire being based upon a fire duration of 14 minutes. Assuming that to be true -- and it may not be if, for example, one or both of the open fire and cease fire times had been transcribed incorrectly, and further assuming that the expenditure was really 93 bullets, one can indeed derive an average rate of fire of 93/14 = 6.64 rounds per minute (though the table seems to show 6.4).

Further assuming that that figure is of some value in reconstructing the events of 24 May -- and I remain to be firmly convinced of that -- one might consider that the rate of fire can be accurately derived subtracting the two figures, i.e. 0609 and 0555. But, insofar as the times are apparently recorded only to the nearest minute, the actual elapsed time -- again assuming no transcription or recording error -- can actually have ranged between 13 and 15 minutes, a difference of about 15%. Thus the actual range of possible (not necessarily probable...) values lies between 93/13 = 7.15 and 93/15 = 6.2 rounds per minute. Actually, as there is really, so far as I know, no precise written record of the state of Bismarck's guns when 'cease fire' was called, i.e. they may have been ready to fire instantaneously when the order was given, or they may have just discharged, things get even more complex. Assume for example that Bismarck's guns were loaded and ready to fire when cease fire was given, i.e. they were one second away from having the firing key closed. Had the cease fire order been given one second later than it was, the salvo would have been discharged and the number of bullets expended would have then been (presumably) 93+4 = 97. A few seconds later, had a second half-broadside taken place, the number of bullets fired might have been 93+8 = 101.

So our possible range of figures now stretches from 93/15 = 6.2 rounds per minute to 101/13 = 7.7 rounds per minute, a difference of (roughly) 20%. Is that too large to make useful analysis possible?

Comments, as always, welcome...

Bill Jurens

Hi Bill,

A couple of observations and an apology if I have the following wrong because I'm away from books and interested party as opposed to an expert! From memory HMS Prince of Wales didn't hit Bismarck after HMS Hood was sunk and Bismarck had been firing at HMS Hood up to her sinking?

So effectively HMS Prince of Wales was firing unmolested at Bismarck up to the point that Bismarck sunk Hood.

Bismarck (because of Hollands deployment) didn't have to change the firing calculations too much to obtain an accurate solution (indeed she gives POW a bit of a pummelling ).

Leach on the POW however has do she manoeuvring round the wreckage of HMS whilst now under concentrated fire and received several hits over the next few minutes. She never gets another hit on target.


So was HMS Prince of Wales fire that good? I mean she was firing unhindered at a target (which was engaging another target) using the latest in RN fire control? That she let off "X" amount of "effective" salvo's asks the question whether what "effective" means? Straddles etc? Yep. Firing off a load of shells and missing by a 1000+ yards isn't (IMHO) . Arguing that the guns were functional is a moot point. They are part of a system, that a gun could technically fire a shell is pretty meaningless if the shell is nowhere the target.Saying its fuctionable is a moot point if it takes a prolonged period to load due to technical failure. You need it now, not 10 minutes later.


So I would tentatively argue that POW's performance actually wasn't that great. She hit Bismarck when she was otherwise engaged,She lost her firing solution and never regained it. Her "good" performance is based on a point of time when nobody was fighting back and she was undamaged.


I'm donning my battle bowler ! I await the incoming!


Best wishes!

HMSVF

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3330
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:34 pm

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "one can indeed derive an average rate of fire of 93/14 = 6.64 rounds per minute (though the table seems to show 6.4)."
Hi Mr.Jurens, 6.64 would be a rather crude approximation (not usable for PoW, btw).
In PoW GAR all figures regarding RoF are correctly calculated excluding the first ordered salvo (if I ask you how many "tics" you hear from a clock per minute, you say 60, not 61, as the first "tic" has clearly not to be included).
"McMullen's" methodology also allows to take into account the time in which not all the turrets were bearing and I have just used McMullen's methodology also for the German ships to compare apples with apples (that's why I had to "assume" a number of 4 shells ordered salvos for Bismarck and even for PG, of course these assumptions do not affect significantly the result but there is anyway a slight effect on the table), please check the table for PoW as in PoW GAR (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm) and you will see what I mean.


Regarding the battle duration, minute 05:55 is recorded but we don't know whether it was 05:55:00 or 05:55:30 or 05:55:59, the same for 06:09 cease fire. Please use whatever open fire time you prefer (based on evidences, because Lutjens says he opened fire at 20800 meters and this points to a timing between 05:55:00 and 05:55:30) and a cease fire time (06:09:xx, based on the solution you "prefer" for the last turns of Bismarck (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424) and based on the fact that 1) Jasper says BS came across his line of fire just before the cease fire order was given at minute 6:09:yy and 2) "last salvo" photo(download/file.php?id=3254)). The figures will not change dramatically , confirming PoW fired in a similar way to Bismarck from average effective RoF and effective # of shells delivered point of view.




Regarding hit rate, I have already several time admitted Bismarck was more precise, hitting the enemy 5 times vs 3 PoW hits and having to switch target in the meantime (even if not in a significant way due to geometry). However PoW hit Bismarck first, finding the range more quickly.


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: 3860
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by dunmunro » Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:33 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:34 pm
Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "one can indeed derive an average rate of fire of 93/14 = 6.64 rounds per minute (though the table seems to show 6.4)."
Hi Mr.Jurens, 6.64 would be a rather crude approximation (not usable for PoW, btw).
In PoW GAR all figures regarding RoF are correctly calculated excluding the first ordered salvo (if I ask you how many "tics" you hear from a clock per minute, you say 60, not 61, as the first "tic" has clearly not to be included).
"McMullen's" methodology also allows to take into account the time in which not all the turrets were bearing and I have just used McMullen's methodology also for the German ships to compare apples with apples (that's why I had to "assume" a number of 4 shells ordered salvos for Bismarck and even for PG, of course these assumptions do not affect significantly the result but there is anyway a slight effect on the table), please check the table for PoW as in PoW GAR (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm) and you will see what I mean.


Regarding the battle duration, minute 05:55 is recorded but we don't know whether it was 05:55:00 or 05:55:30 or 05:55:59, the same for 06:09 cease fire. Please use whatever open fire time you prefer (based on evidences, because Lutjens says he opened fire at 20800 meters and this points to a timing between 05:55:00 and 05:55:30) and a cease fire time (06:09:xx, based on the solution you "prefer" for the last turns of Bismarck (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424) and based on the fact that 1) Jasper says BS came across his line of fire just before the cease fire order was given at minute 6:09:yy and 2) "last salvo" photo(download/file.php?id=3254)). The figures will not change dramatically , confirming PoW fired in a similar way to Bismarck from average effective RoF and effective # of shells delivered point of view.




Regarding hit rate, I have already several time admitted Bismarck was more precise, hitting the enemy 5 times vs 3 PoW hits and having to switch target in the meantime (even if not in a significant way due to geometry). However PoW hit Bismarck first, finding the range more quickly.


Bye, Alberto
Except that Mcmullen excluded the salvos fired via local control and also any salvos requested but not fired after Y turret ran out of ammunition.

Mcmullen was showing the efficacy of PoW's director based salvo output and thus this is only a subset of PoW's total output - which A&A acknowledge but then continue to exclude PoW's actual output over the most probable time interval. McMullen prepared a table for internal RN consumption and not a compartaive table showing PoW's output versus her KM opponents, as such comparing McMullen's salvo table to PE's output is clearly wrong while Bismarck's output over time is unknown. As such the above table is a fabrication which leads any naive viewers to incorrect conclusions.

We have an open fire and cease time for PE from her war diary. The same war diary records Brinkmann as stating that Bismarck opened fire before PE and does not state a ceasefire time for Bismarck.

We also have the issue of time synchronization and both A&A claim that PE's war diary records an incorrect time for Hood's destruction and thus they selective use timing data from PE's war diary but reject any data from it that contradicts their battle theory - they try and select the data to fit their theory rather than taking the data and building a theory from it.

What we actually know from the historical record:

Bismarck sent a radio signal at 0552 stating that she was "...engaging two heavy units..."

Observers on PoW, Suffolk and Norfolk all state that Bismarck opened fire at ~0553

Brinkmann stated that Bismarck opened fire before PE.

other German observers state that Bismarck opened fire before 0555.

Bismarck's salvo output and salvo timing is unknown.

Bismarck's cease fire time is unknown.

Bismarck's probable output during the action was 93 x 38cm rounds, but this is not confirmed by her GAR and never will be.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3330
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:50 pm

Hello everybody,

according to the above (confused and evidently angry) post "everything is unknown".
We can add that also the PoW open fire time is unknown because there was not an atomic clock to exactly measure this timing. :negative:
No, it's incorrect, we have several usable data (and the inability to read them, or the refusal to accept them, speaks for itself).

Dunmunro wrote: "As such the above table is a fabrication which leads any naive viewers to incorrect conclusions."
No, it's a table showing average values in a methodologically correct way. The obstinate determination in the attempt to deny it, shows the irritation of "naive viewers" who still would prefer to blindly trust Tovey+Kennedy's fairy tale about a green ship that fired poorly and "forced" her Captain to retreat, the old tale that British had told to the world for 78 years.

Dunmunro wrote: "Mcmullen excluded the salvos fired via local control "
He would have been expelled from the RN, had he produced a table to evaluate PoW gunnery performance including the meaningless local salvos, fired after the "evading maneuver" and after the control was passed to the aft director and then to the Y turret crew.
Why not to include also the second engagement salvos and the interval between the two actions ?
Why not to include for Bismarck also the salvos that Schneider could possibly have fired had Lutjens given permission to open fire before 5:55 ?
Come on, let's try to be at least serious in this discussion....

Dunmunro wrote "The same war diary records Brinkmann as stating that Bismarck opened fire before PE and does not state a ceasefire time for Bismarck."
Totally incorrect and misleading statement. Who cares here whether BS opened fire before or after PG ? The KTB (both Brinkmann and Schmalenbach) says that BS opened fire at minute 05:55 and (Jasper) that Bismarck came across his line of fire just when he received the order to cease fire (06:09). As we see Bismarck still firing when in PG line of fire (download/file.php?id=3254), we can say that Bismarck ceased fire at around 06:09 (or even later), surely not much before.


This forum member cannot hold back from occasionally resurrecting his "theory" that Bismarck opened fire at 5:53: possibly he has forgotten that, using 05:53 as open fire time for BS in the table, the final result will be even worse for him, with BOTH effective RoF and effective # of shells are better for PoW... Here a kind refresh:

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_BS_open_fire_0553.jpg
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_BS_open_fire_0553.jpg (54.13 KiB) Viewed 173 times


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:15 pm, 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)

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by HMSVF » Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:14 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:50 pm
Hello everybody,

according to the above (confused and evidently angry) post "everything is unknown".
We can add that also the PoW open fire time is unknown because there was not an atomic clock to exactly measure this timing. :negative:
No, it's incorrect, we have several usable data (and the refusal to accept them speaks for itself).

Dunmunro wrote: "As such the above table is a fabrication which leads any naive viewers to incorrect conclusions."
No, it's a table showing average values in a correct way. The attempt to deny it, shows the irritation of "naive viewers" who still would prefer to blindly trust Tovey+Kennedy's fairy tale about a green ship that fired poorly and "forced" her Captain to retreat, the old tale that British had told to the world for 78 years.

Dunmunro wrote: "Mcmullen excluded the salvos fired via local control "
He would have been expelled from the RN, had he produced a table to evaluate PoW gunnery performance including the local salvos, fired after the control was passed to the aft director. Why not to include also the second engagement salvos and the interval between the two actions ? Why not to include for Bismarck also the salvos that Schneider could have fired had Lutjens given permission to fire at 5:53 ? Come on, let's try to be at least serious in this discussion....

Dunmunro wrote "The same war diary records Brinkmann as stating that Bismarck opened fire before PE and does not state a ceasefire time for Bismarck."
Totally incorrect and misleading statement. Who cares here whether BS opened fire before or after PG ? The KTB (both Brinkmann and Schmalenbach) says that BS opened fire at minute 05:55 and (Jasper) that Bismarck came across his line of fire just when he received the order to cease fire (06:09). As we see Bismarck still firing when in PG line of fire (download/file.php?id=3254), we can say that Bismarck ceased fire at around 06:09 (or even later), surely not much before.


This forum member cannot hold back from occasionally resurrecting his "theory" that Bismarck opened fire at 5:53 : possibly he has forgotten that, using 05:53 as open fire time for BS in the table, the final result will be even worse for him, with BOTH effective RoF and effective # of shells are better for PoW... Here a refresh:


PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_BS_open_fire_0553.jpg



Bye, Alberto
No, it's a table showing average values in a correct way. The attempt to deny it, shows the irritation of "naive viewers" who still would prefer to blindly trust Tovey/Kennedy's fairy tale about a green ship that fired poorly and "forced" her Captain to retreat, as British has told to the world for 78 years

POW only obtained hits up to the point of Hoods sinking after that nothing. POW wasn't even targeted up till Hoods sinking was she? I wouldn't call her performance after Hoods sinking a stella performance.

Bismarck however managed to sink Hood whilst under fire from Hood herself and POW, change targets quickly and continue accurate fire hitting POW multiple times. I don't think that there is any comparison. If POW had managed to land a few hits during or post her manoeuvring round Hoods wreckage then there maybe a comparison. She (POW) didn't.

Locked