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: 3451
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 8:19 am

Hello everybody,

from "Naval Weapons" a British HE 14". The image is not very detailed, but it looks like there are 2 bands on this shell.

14 shell.jpg
14 shell.jpg (51.56 KiB) Viewed 280 times

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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3451
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 8:25 am

Hello everybody,

from Tarrant's book on KGV class battleships, a shell room with a shell apparently showing (again not very detailed photo) 2 bands.

14 inches shell..JPG
14 inches shell..JPG (49.06 KiB) Viewed 277 times


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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3451
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 8:44 am

Hello everybody,

...however (from Bruce Taylor's book on Hood) it looks like also Hood was using 15" shells with two bands (albeit they look much more close one to the other, even without any separation between the two of them, as visible in the scheme from NavWeaps below, that calls the two bands "driving band"):

15 inches shells.JPG
15 inches shells.JPG (39.81 KiB) Viewed 274 times

Possibly Germans called these close bands a "single band" (as per the scheme below) in comparison to the much more separate 2 bands of the 14" shell...


Bye, Alberto
Attachments
15 inches shell schemes.jpg
15 inches shell schemes.jpg (58.02 KiB) Viewed 273 times
"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: 1872
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 10:51 am

Fellow Contributors,

Sorry for responding to the dog whistle but,

Although it is off subject it should be noted, very briefly that Busch:
but when his reported distance of Suffolk
never identifies "Suffolk", or a ten thousand ton cruiser, or a ship of any sort, but merely "a mast" at a distance where if it were any of the first three things it would be obvious what it was, thanks to Zeiss optics.

To disagree slightly with Dunmunro, the AP shell should explode only after the fuse delay, some distance underwater, and with its smaller bursting charge the fragments are less likely to travel any distance.

It would be interesting for a German speaker to parallel the excellent translation of the KTB available on this site. It is clear the identification as 14" was equivocal even in 1941, and contrary to opinion in PG that only Hood fired at them.

Despite the use of a speculative battle map of Bismarck's course to interpret and contradict Langemann's photographs which are annotated- presumably by him, and captioned by Busch, describing the single splashes as being from Hood, I believe this speculation is wrong.
If there were 14in shells falling close to PE, they might well have come from Aylwin's local control fire via Y turret.
Busch described in detail PoW's local turret firing and if it was directed at PG he surely would have noticed.

Unlike the incorrect reference to Suffolk, alluded to earlier, what he actually records is:
[ The lively little First Officer is speaking] "It's amazing how brilliantly Hood fired. The Captain told me about it. Anyhow her last shots fell wide. according to the second Gunnery Officer." "Lagemann," he said turning to the photographer, "you got that too, didn't you?" The war reporter put down his cup. "Yes Herr Kapitan, I did. They fell to starboard, and not very far from the ship."
So we have the shots identified on the photographs as the "last shots of Hood" and confirmed in the text of The Story of Prinz Eugen, as being nothing to do with PoW, but from a time when Hood was still afloat, whatever speculation there is about Bismarck's turret orientation and therefore her course at that time.
I see the point now, the "water wall" would have prevented Alwin from delivering quite precise shots at Bismarck.
Amongst the many, many things including heeling, rapid turning of both firing ship and target, the rudimentary fire control available in Y turret, the lack of any spotting of any shots from these salvoes and hence corrections. And Trunnion tilt.

All the best

wadinga

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3451
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 11:36 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Although it is off subject it should be noted, very briefly that Busch....never identifies "Suffolk", or a ten thousand ton cruiser, or a ship of any sort, but merely "a mast"... "
...however the "mast" (mentioned together the other enemy ships...) is on the right bearing (see Suffolk transmitted bearings and PG battlemap) according to its course,as demonstrated by Antonio, and the distance is almost the same accounted by Ellis in his autobiography. Thus Busch account is confirmed in this specific case.
As this is completely off topic, it should be moved to the right thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231&start=210#p79492), if really interested to discuss the battlemap...

Wadinga wrote: "So we have the shots identified on the photographs as the "last shots of Hood" and confirmed in the text of The Story of Prinz Eugen"
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...) because in no way Bismarck can be on course 270° as clearly visible in the photo (download/file.php?id=3251) when Hood was still afloat.

The 2 splashes we see in the film are clearly directed to Bismarck (not to PG) and Hood never fired at Bismarck (see Skipwith who never saw any Hood splash close to Bismarck while assisting McMullen in the fall of shot observation). Thus they are from PoW (salvo 20 and 21 in local control, one shell each), remarkably precise, despite all the problems listed and much better than salvo 19 fired much too short (see NH69731).

Repeating incessantly a wrong statement will not make it less incorrect. In case Mr.Wadinga wants to attribute the 2 splashes to Hood, he must propose a new battlemap (the old Schmalenbach's one has already been proven wrong) countering everybody here (including the moderator) who say that Bismarck was always sailing a straight course (around 220° due to range closure rate) until Hood demise.
Is he able to propose an alternative in the right thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424)? :negative:


Bye, Alberto


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:40 am, edited 2 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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3902
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 11:37 am

RN 14inch and larger guns used single driving bands that were identical, although there was a gap in the band that might be mistaken for a double band:

Image
(BR932 - Handbook on Ammunition}

only the HV 6in and 8in shells used double bands.

AP shells can have irregular UW paths, and can move back towards the surface before detonating, but I think the above is pretty conclusive that the KM and PE got it wrong and the shell fragment most likely came from Hood.

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:48 am

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

....
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. .....
Being extremely polite - that is incredibly wrong.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3451
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 11:49 am

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: " think the above is pretty conclusive that the KM and PE got it wrong and the shell fragment most likely came from Hood."
I see Mr.Dunmunro point and I agree the most logical explanation is to attribute the splinter to Hood.

However the photos (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=210#p82494, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=210#p82495) show 2 bands around 14" shell (see the color between the bands, being the shell body color).

Also, the "gap" dimension is too big to correspond to the drawing posted here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=210#p82499) that can correspond to the 15" of Hood that looks like having a very short "gap" (download/file.php?id=3429).

The difference between Hood's and PoW's driving band(s) can possibly be reason for Germans to "call" them 2 separate driving bands...



Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:55 am, edited 2 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)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3451
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 11:52 am

Hello everybody,
pgollin wrote: "Being extremely polite - that is incredibly wrong."
being extremely polite, less than pretending that randomly fired local salvos must be added to the table to measure meaningful performances.

Anyway the choice to exclude local salvos is McMullen's choice not mine (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm).


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: 3902
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 11:59 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:36 am


The 2 splashes we see in the film are clearly directed to Bismarck (not to PG) and Hood never fired at Bismarck (see Skipwith who never saw any Hood splash close to Bismarck while assisting McMullen in the fall of shot observation). Thus they are from PoW (salvo 20 and 21 in local control, one shell each), remarkably precise, despite all the problems listed and much better than salvo 19 fired much too short (see NH69731).

Repeating incessantly a wrong statement will not make it less incorrect. In case Mr.Wadinga wants to attribute the 2 splashes to Hood, he must propose a new battlemap (the old Schmalenbach's one has already been proven wrong) countering everybody here (including the moderator) who say that Bismarck was always sailing a straight course (around 220° due to range closure rate) until Hood demise.
Is he able to propose an alternative in the right thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424)? :negative:


The splashes shown are probably closer to PE than to Bismarck. Trying to judge distance from a 2 dimensional image is always difficult but the height of the splash seems to indicate that it was closer to PE than to Bismarck.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3451
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 12:06 pm

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "The splashes shown are probably closer to PE than to Bismarck"
I disagree, as clearly visible in the PG film (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/film.htm) where the last splash seems clearly directed to Bismarck (minute 5:57 and 6:15, correctly captioned on Hood's website). The first one looks like falling between the two ships.

Anyway I agree that the last PoW local salvos may have fallen between the two ships, making difficult to say which ship is closer to the splashes. In no way however the ship fired at was PG, as Hood was gone since a while and Alwin intended to fire at Bismarck. Another battlemap needs to be proposed to say that the film is turned before 6:03, due to Bismarck course.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:09 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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3902
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 12:07 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:49 am
Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: " think the above is pretty conclusive that the KM and PE got it wrong and the shell fragment most likely came from Hood."
I see Mr.Dunmunro point and I agree the most logical explanation is to attribute the splinter to Hood.

However the photos (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=210#p82494, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=210#p82495) show 2 bands around 14" shell (see the color between the bands, being the shell body color).

Also, the "gap" dimension is too big to correspond to the drawing posted here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=210#p82499) that can correspond to the 15" of Hood that looks like having a very short "gap" (download/file.php?id=3429).

The difference between Hood's and PoW's driving band(s) can possibly be reason for Germans to "call" them 2 separate driving bands...



Bye, Alberto
The length of the driving band is ~4in for both the 14in and 15in shells shown in the photos as per the drawing of the 15in shell, which shows an 0-15in scale. The width of the mans hand is a good marker for the 14in driving band length.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3902
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 12:20 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:06 pm
Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "The splashes shown are probably closer to PE than to Bismarck"
I disagree, as clearly visible in the PG film (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/film.htm) where the last splash seems clearly directed to Bismarck (minute 5:57 and 6:15, correctly captioned on Hood's website). The first one looks like falling between the two ships.

Anyway I agree that the last PoW local salvos may have fallen between the two ships, making difficult to say which ship is closer to the splashes. In no way however the ship fired at was PG, as Hood was gone since a while and Alwin intended to fire at Bismarck. Another battlemap needs to be proposed to say that the film is turned before 6:03, due to Bismarck course.


Bye, Alberto
The clip probably shows two 15in salvos falling closer to PE than Bismarck, with the 2nd shell of the first salvo out of the frame of the camera (because it fell too close) and at 0615 you see the first shell splash and at 0625 you can see the 2nd shell splash collapsing.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3451
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 12:26 pm

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "The clip probably shows two 15in salvos falling closer to PE than Bismarck,"
Simply impossible, as Hood had gone since some minutes when the film was turned and PoW did not fire 15" shells...
Everybody see Bismarck firing aft of her beam (download/file.php?id=3251) and at no point in time she was firing that way before 6:03 (PG turn to avoid torpedoes). In no way when Hood was afloat due to range closure rate from PoW GAR (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm).

The splashes cannot be than 14" from PoW. An alternative version of the battle (in the right thread, please) is needed to say the contrary (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424).

Btw, where are the PoW 14" splashes that were targeting Bismarck in the meantime ? We should say we have 1,5 (or 2 if velocized) minutes in which we see no shell from PoW, while by chance we see 2 long shots from Hood between PG and Bismarck: simply impossible.


Dunmunro wrote: "at 0625 you can see the 2nd shell splash collapsing"
The firts shell (6:15) collapsing does not leave any vertical trace in the sky, the "second" is simply not a splash.


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: 354
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:42 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:52 am
Hello everybody,
pgollin wrote: "Being extremely polite - that is incredibly wrong."

being extremely polite, less than pretending that randomly fired local salvos must be added to the table to measure meaningful performances.

Anyway the choice to exclude local salvos is McMullen's choice not mine (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm).


Bye, Alberto


No. Your claim was rubbish. Trying to claim that your claim is less wrong than your choice in tabulating data is totally ridiculous.

.

Locked