PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 854
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by paul.mercer » Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:31 am

Gentlemen,
I presume OT means Off Topic, if so I really cannot see why my last post should be, it appears that we are discussing the gunnery performance of the two ships, hence my points of the overall condition of PoW and the unfamiliarity of her crew plus lack of a long 'workup' (all taken from Tarrents book) before going into battle so I was trying to say that given everything that I described in that post that overall, PoW did not do too badly even though she had to retire from the conflict.

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 723
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:08 pm

While I wouldn't consider PoWs gunnery performance exemplary by any means, it is difficult to tell exactly what proportion of her difficulties can be ascribed to poor-training and lack of experience, and what proportion might be ascribed to the fact that she was hit so severely by Bismarck and Prinz Eugen, and that due to the loss of Hood, she was forced to maneuver in what might best be described as 'sub-optimal' ways. She did 'get on' for whatever reasons, fairly slowly, and what seems to be her relatively poor gunnery afterwards was certainly affected by the shells that came aboard and the need to maneuver around the wreck of Hood. But it's very difficult -- I would say impossible, really -- to actually quantify that except in very general terms.

How different might the action had been if, just to reverse things a bit, Bismarck had taken a heavy projectile hit through the bridge, and Prinz Eugen had exploded directly in front of her? Or the opposite -- i.e. Bismarck explodes and Prinz Eugen takes a hit through the bridge?

Gunnery can only really be compared fairly when the sample is large and when conditions are closely controlled to ensure a level playing field. In the case of Denmark Strait, neither requirement applies...

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:08 pm

Hello everybody,

while I agree with Mr.Jurens that "Gunnery can only really be compared fairly when the sample is large and when conditions are closely controlled...", I would however still say that in the actual, short battle that was fought by the 3 battleships, PoW fired in a way that was absolutely in line with Bismarck, while it was Hood that showed an extremely poor gunnery, never hitting in a 5 minutes action and (possibly) sending one splinter only on board PG.


PoW effective RoF was in line with Bismarck's (1.4 salvos/minute vs 1.6), her effective # of shells delivered / minute was even slightly higher than Bismarck's (7 shells/minute vs 6,4), she hit the enemy after less minutes from open fire (3) than Bismarck (3.5 or 4), from a larger distance (4000 yards more far) and despite the "handicap" of firing the first 8 salvos with just the fore turrets. However, she hit only 3 times vs the probable 5 Bismarck hits. When maneuvering in emergency, both ships were unable to hit the enemy anymore.
With her 3 hits, she caused damages far more serious (and determinant for the outcome of the operation) than the "superficial" (Leach definition) damages received with the 3 hits by PoW, that after the battle was in better efficiency conditions than Bismarck (the latter was leaking oil, with reserve energy reduced by 50%, 1 boiler room leaking (and later abandoned), with the risk of further water inflow in case the bulkhead between comp. XX and XIX could not resist the pressure at high speeds). "Only" casualties were unfavorable to PoW during the engagement.


Whether all the above (except the "effective" figures...) have to be ascribed to sheer luck (or to tactical decisions), we will never know, as the sample is not large enough, but these are the facts that emerged from the actual battle fought that day. They should never be forgotten when speaking of PoW performances, too many times diminished since the beginning both officially and in the publications (IMO in the attempt to justify Capt.Leach's decision to disengage).


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)

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by HMSVF » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:08 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:08 pm
Hello everybody,

while I agree with Mr.Jurens that "Gunnery can only really be compared fairly when the sample is large and when conditions are closely controlled...", I would however still say that in the actual, short battle that was fought by the 3 battleships, PoW fired in a way that was absolutely in line with Bismarck, while it was Hood that showed an extremely poor gunnery, never hitting in a 5 minutes action and (possibly) sending one splinter only on board PG.


PoW effective RoF was in line with Bismarck's (1.4 salvos/minute vs 1.6), her effective # of shells delivered / minute was even slightly higher than Bismarck's (7 shells/minute vs 6,4), she hit the enemy after less minutes from open fire (3) than Bismarck (3.5 or 4), from a larger distance (4000 yards more far) and despite the "handicap" of firing the first 8 salvos with just the fore turrets. However, she hit only 3 times vs the probable 5 Bismarck hits. When maneuvering in emergency, both ships were unable to hit the enemy anymore.
With her 3 hits, she caused damages far more serious (and determinant for the outcome of the operation) than the "superficial" (Leach definition) damages received with the 3 hits by PoW, that after the battle was in better efficiency conditions than Bismarck (the latter was leaking oil, with reserve energy reduced by 50%, 1 boiler room leaking (and later abandoned), with the risk of further water inflow in case the bulkhead between comp. XX and XIX could not resist the pressure at high speeds). "Only" casualties were unfavorable to PoW during the engagement.


Whether all the above (except the "effective" figures...) have to be ascribed to sheer luck (or to tactical decisions), we will never know, as the sample is not large enough, but these are the facts that emerged from the actual battle fought that day. They should never be forgotten when speaking of PoW performances, too many times diminished since the beginning both officially and in the publications (IMO in the attempt to justify Capt.Leach's decision to disengage).


Bye, Alberto

Evening,

Did Leach claim that the damage was superficial during or after the engagement (when the damage control centre had done their assessments) ?


HMSVF

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:39 pm

Hello everybody,
HMSVF wrote: "Did Leach claim that the damage was superficial during or after the engagement"
Are we comparing and analyzing actual gunnery data (as available almost 78 years later) or collecting the "impressions" got by the participants in the heat of 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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:11 pm

Hello Paul Mercer,

To remind you of the answer you received in September from Antonio Bonomi:
@ Paul Mercer,

it should be clear enough by now that the intentional lies written by Adm Tovey on his dispatches at point 19, I mean mainly the false 06:13 retreat time and the Y turret jamming event occurred before and not after the turn away of 160° to port, ... has been written ( and accepted by the Admiralty being the official version of the facts ), ... with the only intent to save Capt Leach and put him out of troubles in the future ( in case of a Board of Inquiry ), ... and in this way they enabled his recognition too.

As Alberto properly wrote there are 2 main source of information about what really happened on board the HMS Prince of Wales that morning, ... while Colin McMullen was thinking that " the guns were OK", .... an this is an event that into the " loved novel " has been always depicted like the mechanical " teething troubles " situation to be associated to the poor fine tuning of the new weapons, ... while obviously the Vickers Armstrong had a complete different opinion about those events as we can read on their detailed reports.

One point I like you to keep in mind before you read and evaluate all the details and it is related to Capt Leach himself, ... and on his position and duty for the Royal Navy that he had just before accepting the command of the HMS Prince of Wales.

He was the Director of Naval Ordnance and in that role the main responsible for the acceptance for the Royal Navy new weapons as you can read on his book biography from page 51 to page 56, ... so about the KGV and PoW too.

https://www.amazon.com/Highest-Traditio ... 0752459929

In my personal opinion that is key to understand what was on his mind and why he had a lot of pre-conceived opinion about those guns and turrets, having been personally responsible for the acceptance of those weapons for the Royal Navy just before he had to rely on them on the new battleship under his direct responsibility.
The fact that he delayed PoW commissioning and pretended the Vickers Armstrong technicians on board even after is just an additional confirmation of what I am stating.

The 2 last things to be noticed is that first, ... those problems were common to all warships more or less, ... and the second in favor of the honor and dignity of Capt Leach I must underline the fact that despite having done what he did, ... and having tried to justify it with some progressively more precise radio messages, ... he did not write the known intentional lies on his report, ... the ones that today many are keep on publishing on books, ... the 06:13 PoW retreat time and 21 minutes battle of which 14 minutes fighting on alone against the Bismarck ( Kennedy on Pursuit ), ... and the Y turret jamming occurred before the turn away disengaging and not after it and because of it.

Capt Leach NEVER wrote those lies on his radio messages and on his official last battle report, ... it has been Adm Tovey to do it on his dispatches, ... starting the incorrect data publications that we can still read today published by historians and professors on recent years too.
Mr Bonomi's main points can be summarised:

1/ "He was the Director of Naval Ordnance and in that role the main responsible for the acceptance for the Royal Navy new weapons" if the 14" guns were unserviceable it was his fault and he would get the blame.

2/ " he had a lot of pre-conceived opinion about those guns and turrets, having been personally responsible for the acceptance of those weapons for the Royal Navy just before he had to rely on them on the new battleship under his direct responsibility." Because they had proved difficult to develop, he thought they were worse than they really were, so he started inventing problems that didn't exist and needed manufacturers' specialist workmen.

3/ "The fact that he delayed PoW commissioning" This is simply incorrect, in fact he did not delay commissioning at all. PoW commissioned January 14th 1941. The months of Feb, March, April, and most of May were spent installing mechanisms for guns, turrets and …...two propellers etc

4/ "and pretended the Vickers Armstrong technicians on board even after " This alleges there was no need for any manufacturers team on board and Leach was covering his incompetence as Director of Naval Ordnance in approving the design and secondly in accepting a ship with what he (erroneously, apparently) believed to be ineffective armament.

5/ "those problems were common to all warships more or less" Many would disagree with this assertion.

6/ "Colin McMullen was thinking that " the guns were OK", .... an this is an event that into the " loved novel " has been always depicted like the mechanical " teething troubles " situation to be associated to the poor fine tuning of the new weapons, ... while obviously the Vickers Armstrong had a complete different opinion about those events as we can read on their detailed reports." WE can't read them at all because those who have read them withhold the details. One might consider if guns fail to load or fire it is hardly "fine tuning". Are the "different opinions" supposed to different to McMullen or Leach?

7/ "the fact that despite having done what he did, ... and having tried to justify it with some progressively more precise radio messages, ... he did not write the known intentional lies on his report," This means Capitan Leach ran away from the enemy, despite having guns that were "OK" but whilst being accused of cowardice it was his superiors who did all the lying.

I can only think you have forgotten this exposition because it is all nonsense.

All the best

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

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by HMSVF » Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:39 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:39 pm
Hello everybody,
HMSVF wrote: "Did Leach claim that the damage was superficial during or after the engagement"
Are we comparing and analyzing actual gunnery data (as available almost 78 years later) or collecting the "impressions" got by the participants in the heat of the action ?


Bye, Alberto
Evening,

No I’m just asking when he made that statement. Was it in the moments after the initial engagement or after he had received the damage control reports after the teams had completed there assessment ? It makes a huge difference.

Regards


HMSVF

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:16 am

Hello everybody,
HMSVF wrote: "I’m just asking when he made that statement"
Message was sent at 6:24 on May 24.
The (almost correct) evaluation of Capt.Leach (probably based at that time on the preliminary report of his Executive Officer after the battle, as usual) was confirmed by the Damage Report that doesn't show any major damage significantly affecting the efficiency of PoW as a battleship, just adding to the hits known at 6:24 the underwater 15" shell that did not penetrate the vitals and did not explode at all.

We are however discussing here the actual gunnery performance based on ALL the evidences we have available as per today, not the impressions (and the reactions) of the participants in the heat of the action.
It is a fact that Bismarck damages were much more affecting her efficiency (finally sealing her destiny) than the ones received by PoW, even if this can be ascribed to sheer luck. Her effective RoF and effective # of shells/minute is instead a parameter that does not depend on luck and/or on the tactical decisions taken by BC1 and by Capt.Leach (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82534#p82529).



Wadinga wrote (again): "...WE can't read them at all because those who have read them withhold the details..."
[part of comment redacted by moderator Jurens]
they are copyright protected and there is no way for me to publish them here. In any case, Vickers-Armstrong report is even saying that guns were almost perfect, not only "ok" (as anybody can guess, coming from the producer of the turrets...). The truth is possibly in the middle between PoW GAR (outlining Vickers' guns problems) and Vickers-Armstrong report (outlining PoW crew errors).
As an exception, I have repeatedly said I'm available to send some of their content to friends here and, in case, it's sufficient to drop me a private mail.

The alternative is simple: to go and study what is in the British archives, instead of complaining. Regarding the provocation of defining "nonsense" in his above post what is in the official papers, I leave to others the judgement.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2031
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 12:46 pm

[Extensive redaction by moderator Jurens. Comments may be valid, but must be respectfully phrased...]

For Paul Mercer: Brooke confirms a large proportion of the crew were raw recruits:
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.
If some part of the original Vickers-Armstrong report exists in Cambridge its words can be quoted without concern over any reproduction constraints applied by Roskill's estate which can apply to his words only. Roskill's estate cannot copyright the words of others. Besides paraphrasing cannot infringe copyright but depends on the paraphraser including comments deleterious to his case as well as those that support it. That is the difference between a researcher and a prosecutor.
We are however discussing here the actual gunnery performance based on ALL the evidences we have available as per today, not the impressions (and the reactions) of the participants in the heat of the action.
Yes we are, which is why the glib and uninformed observation "the guns are OK" made "in the heat of the action" is of no value or weight against the mountain of evidence saying they were anything but OK. The questionable mathematical techniques of the Tiresome Table contribute nothing.

All those who have detailed the design failures and operational shortcomings in operation of PoW's 14" installation like Tarrant, Hodges, Padfield are dismissed [deletion by moderator Jurens] by phrases like:
starting the incorrect data publications that we can still read today published by historians and professors on recent years too.
because the observation "the guns are OK" made in the "heat of the action" is more valid than all this evidence.

Leach's signal is timed 06:24 but just as:
We are however discussing here the actual gunnery performance based on ALL the evidences we have available as per today
Leach could not know what he knew at 06:24 after damage control reports, much earlier, say at 06:05 before he received them. As McMullen admitted later, when he was better informed, the decision to turn away was fully justified.

I am sure many contributors (like me) here have expended some cash in gaining knowledge and have shared it as part of the spirit of this forum.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:16 pm

Hello everybody,

I'm afraid the above long post is irrelevant when evaluating the actual gunnery performances emerged from the comparison with Bismarck (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82534#p82529).
The fact that RN insisted on "gun defects" and Vickers on "human errors" is logical (due to the interests of both the involved parties), but the difference is so small that it will not change in any way the above conclusions, based uniquely on public evidences available for free...)

[Deletion by moderator Jurens] instead of trusting the official reports and the available evidences will not change any of the above figures, especially the effective ones (download/file.php?id=3422) , that are based only on what is officially available.

Adm.Santarini (download/file.php?id=3420), in his dedicated gunnery analysis, explained very clearly why British couldn't simply accept that PoW fired quite well on May 24, but apparently his message has not yet passed... It will be reinforced in the next publications though...


Wadinga wrote: "Brooke confirms a large proportion of the crew were raw recruits"
...while Bismarck crew was very "senior", all of them experienced gunners, used to stay under fire since their young age... :negative:


Wadinga wrote: "the observation "the guns are OK" made in the "heat of the action" is more valid than all this evidence"
No, the mentioned accounts and the too many books repeating this incorrect version of facts are made invalid by a simple analysis of available data and consequent figures (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82534#p82529), just confirming McMullen's "furious" message to his Captian and Leach's own initial damage evaluation, both "in the heat of the action", but I can understand that an happy ending novel, tenaciously accounted for so many years, is much more comfortable to trust.



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: 369
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:47 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:16 am

.... As I have repeatedly said, I have bought them full price, they are copyright protected and there is no way for me to publish them here. ....

.... As an exception, I have repeatedly said I'm available to send some of their content to friends here and, in case, it's sufficient to drop me a private mail. .....


Actually, there is nothing stopping you from transcribing the document(s) as the Hood site did.

.

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 723
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 6:21 pm

Please, gentlemen -- or at least the few gentlemen to which this applies -- do try to keep the conversation civil. I have had to make a number of redactions today, and do not feel up to having to read every word of every post in order to police these issues. It's too much work. If unnecessary or inflammatory postings continue, I will have to consider temporary bans.

Please READ your postings before putting them up and eliminate, or at least tactfully phrase, negative commentary. Nobody, except perhaps the one posting the material, finds it useful or even interesting.

I have written Mr. Virtuani back-channel requesting a copy of the documentation in question in order to enable an evaluation of the content, and assess the possibility of more extensive publication. In that regard, it of course remains Mr. Virtuani's right to withhold here, but if posting is impossible on this forum, it would be useful if he could provide specific guidelines as to exactly where the original documentation is located in the archives, permitting some other participant to potentially recover it.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:32 pm

Hello everybody,
pgollin wrote: "Actually, there is nothing stopping you from transcribing the document(s) as the Hood site did."
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. I have not, also because, when I have transcribed Tovey's letters to Roskill re. the Court Martial (much shorter, much less than 1 page typewritten each and anyway very time-consuming), making them available to everybody here for the very first time and risking anyway, I got only critics from the usual forum members (editing, cropping for my hidden agenda, etc.) or the usual "adamant denials" from others: please see this (very long thread) from here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=77032&hilit=letter#p77032 to see what I mean.


As I have said, there is nothing in Vickers-Armstrong report that can in any way change the figures and the conclusions that are in discussion here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82541#p82529) in comparison to Bismarck. For whom may have forgotten it, all the relevant parts of the report have been already "transcribed" by me and discussed here more than one year ago (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834&p=76840&hilit= ... rge#p76840) with the valid support from Mr.Cag. I suggest to read this thread to get almost all information.
The remaining part of the report is a long interesting discussion over the design of the 14" turrets.
I'm afraid you will have to trust me on this...


Bye, Alberto


P.S.: at the time I have even provided some excerpts of the report via private messages to people I considered "friends" and knowledgeable about gunnery, with the results everybody has seen: "errare humanum est, perseverare...."
"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: 2031
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 8:46 pm

Fellow Contributors<

It has been said:
simple analysis of available data and consequent figures
"Simple" as in naïve and grossly inaccurate analysis.

The greatest recorded temperature ranges in the world are around the Siberian `cold pole' in the east of Russia. Temperatures in Verkhoyansk (67ø33'N, 133ø23'E) have ranged 105degC 188degF, from -68øC -90øF to 37øC 98øF.

Is the average temperature of any interest at all? No, because it rarely happens and is so difference to the majority temperatures actually experienced. This because the Variance of the values and hence standard deviation make the Mean irrelevant. The average rate for PoW is irrelevant, and we don't have any real figures at all as opposed to "invented/assumed" figures for Bismarck.
that are based only on what is officially available
There is only one official figure for Bismarck- number of rounds expended.

We know the Baron makes no mention of any gunnery problems in Bismarck apart from one missed shot. Her green crew had months of practice in the Baltic.

[Extensive redaction by moderator Jurens. Comments may be valid, but must be respectfully phrased...] Darn, can't remember what I posted now, but I'll bet the MPI was right on target! And low variance meant several hits in one salvo.

Oh yes, it was about failing to mention what else Geoffrey Brooke says on the same page 49 about how much trouble the unreliable 14" installation was.
explained very clearly why British couldn't simply accept that PoW fired quite well
What Adm Santarini says is that of the few shots PoW got away, before she started being hit and before the range came down towards point blank when she should have got more but didn't, a surprising number hit. However since one out of three (that's a whole 33% for statistics fans) merely took off the wooden bow of a boat of no value during an ocean voyage, it was as good as a clear miss. Adm Santarini fails to appreciate that the emphasis of many respected writers, including some British, and at least one Canadian, on poor output from PoW's guns relates to the several additional hits she should have made if her guns had not been failing to be available to shoot even at the glacially slow rate and huge intervals between her double salvoes.

Good gunnery is composed of at least three vital elements: accurate shooting, high output and very importantly, luck. One hit may remove some irrelevant woodwork, one hits destroys a battleship and its crew. As far as Santarini is concerned a hit is a hit.

I posted photographs of a multi page handwritten letter from Tovey to Pound which I found at my own expense etc etc and I believe had never been identified, quoted, cited or referred to previously in any of the literature. I believe a World Premiere on this site. Surely photographs of pages could be sent to the Moderator? Many, many, many photographs of pages of copyright books have been posted to this site by the possessor of the 32 page document.

A photograph of a page means nothing can be left out, accidentally changing the meaning of the document. Transcribing is supposed to mean reproducing everything in the document not just the "relevant parts".

If there is a 32 page technical report how can a simple, elementary level mathematical analysis overturn its findings and render them invalid or even dishonest? I guess if you consider Ellis' reminiscences in unedited, unpublished form recollected after many, many years are more reliable than the multi-page report he wrote in 1941 you might believe that. Those fragments of the 32 page report which have been mentioned in that old thread raise many, many questions unanswered there.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Mar 20, 2019 9:04 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "The average rate for PoW is irrelevant"
Mr.Wadinga should tell it to McMullen, who produced the table that annoys him so much (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm), not to me....
If the table was meaningful for McMullen in order to show his ship performances, I guess Mr.Wadinga should accept it or tell us finally why he disagrees with the G.O. of HMS PoW.

Wadinga wrote: "Her green crew had months of practice in the Baltic."
but never 7 weeks gunnery practice "night and day"...

Wadinga wrote: "how can a simple, elementary level mathematical analysis overturn its findings"
...simply because the "annoying table" (download/file.php?id=3422) does not overturn anything contained in the "Vickers" report. All figures discussed here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82544#p82529) are NOT overturning any Vickers report statement, as well. They are all available in the public records from official documents.

Wadinga wrote: "....poor output from PoW's guns relates to the several additional hits she should have made if her guns had not been failing to be available to shoot even at the glacially slow rate..."
...glacially slow but faster than Bismarck's actual RoF (and KGV and Rodney on May 27 :lol: )... Which additional hits ? Even assuming an unrealistic 100% output efficiency (instead of the actual 75%) the total hits would have been... 4 in total instead of 3... statistically....

Wadinga wrote: "I posted photographs of a multi page handwritten letter from Tovey to Pound "
...thanks, it was a great discovery, and we immediately thanked him for this ultimate evidence about the "regrettable aftermath". :clap:

Mr.Wadinga reaction when I published Tovey's 1961 letter was very, very different (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&hilit=letter&start=915#p77048, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&hilit=letter&start=915#p77071, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&hilit=letter&start=915#p77062).

After what he has said at that time, he is the last one who should ask me to "transcript" any further document... Here he can find all the info I'm willing to concede him (if he is ready to spend time to read and to digest through 3 or 4 pages of the thread) viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834&p=76840&hilit= ... rge#p76840.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:27 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)

Locked