PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1352
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 11:41 am

The question is: how many shells were in one salvo?

In that list: download/file.php?id=3461 it is said that the RoF was better than Bismarck's therefore I expect from the author of that list that he can easily explain why a higher RoF is better.
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3321
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 12:09 pm

Hello everybody,

(as I have several times explained) all "salvos" in the list (download/file.php?id=3461) have to be intended as 4 guns ordered salvos for Bismarck and 5 guns ordered salvos for PoW (if all turrets bear, else 3). How many "shells" depend on Output Loss...

Regarding RoF importance, with a higher (effective) RoF, more (shells) shots are fired against the enemy / minute, therefore a higher RoF is "better" , as any gunnery officer (like Adm.Santarini, who used this parameter) can easily confirm to the ones having still doubts about this fact....


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)

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by northcape » Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:37 pm

Herr Nilsson wrote:
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?
It does not tell you anything about how good or bad a ship in a battle did. Everybody who believes that may also estimates the air temperature from the color of the sky. Two largely unrelated things. This table only shows the skill of entering numbers into Excel without any understanding about the actual meaning of those numbers and the used mathematical operations. It is hard to believe that this table is still being discussed among many here in the context of evaluating the effectiveness of fire in the DS battle.

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:38 pm

So far as effectiveness is concerned, I would again suggest the old 'Shots Per Gun Per Minute' (SPGPM) and 'Hits Per Gun Per Minute' (HPGPM) as something worth considering. Although at this stage what information of historical value might be extracted from these numbers remains problematical. Just numbers...

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3321
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 4:21 pm

Hello everybody,
northcape wrote: "This table only shows the skill of entering numbers into Excel without any understanding about the actual meaning of those numbers and the used mathematical operations."
as well as certain posts (not yet censored unfortunately), only "show the skill of entering" words "into a forum without understanding about the meaning of the" discussion and of what we are speaking about.



Bill Jurens wrote: "So far as effectiveness is concerned, I would again suggest the old 'Shots Per Gun Per Minute' (SPGPM) and 'Hits Per Gun Per Minute' (HPGPM)"
I would say that the "effective shells per minute" (point 4 download/file.php?id=3461) is the equivalent of SPGPM, albeit at whole ship level and not at single gun level.

Point 8 covers the HPGPM but I think it's unfair to say that PoW hit 3 times in 9 minutes (0,333 HPM = hits per minute) while BS hit 5 times in 14 minutes (0,365 HPM).... I would leave this point as a more "qualitative" than "quantitative" consideration.

Anyway, I see no reason why we should not use McMullen parameters, ready, 100% sure and incontrovertible at least for one ship...


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)

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by northcape » Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:52 pm

Bill Jurens wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:38 pm
So far as effectiveness is concerned, I would again suggest the old 'Shots Per Gun Per Minute' (SPGPM) and 'Hits Per Gun Per Minute' (HPGPM) as something worth considering. Although at this stage, it's really difficult to tell what information of historical value might be extracted fromthese numbers remains problematical. Just numbers...

Bill Jurens
I tend to disagree for taking those numbers, even if you have them correctly restored/calculated/logged, for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness for a single battle.
The question simply is what is meant by "effectiveness" ? Ordering as many shots as possible? Putting out as many projectiles as possible? Getting as many straddles as possible? Hitting as often as possible? Hitting in vulnerable areas as often as possible? Comparing these numbers for all ships in a battle, or for all ships in each class over all battles and exercises? In the latter case, do we have enough robust (meaning: comparable) data for a profound statistical analysis (answer: no). Taking into account tactical movements and shifting fire to different targets?

Of course you can have numbers for each of these scenarios, but which one do you chose to prove/demonstrate the effectiveness of fire in a single battle, as asked for in this thread? This is subjective, and of course if you want to have a certain outcome for your theory than you can pick freely among these different scenarios.

For the DS street, it is sufficient to say that 1 new BS and 1 heavy cruiser sank one old battlecruiser and did significant damage to another new battleship, which as a consequence left the battlefield in order not to get annihilated. In return, the BS received relatively minor damage (which however forced her to abandon the operation). These are the plain facts, and fabricating numbers just adds personal interpretation, which is of course fine.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3321
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 8:51 pm

Hello everybody,

Mr.northcape wrote, demonstrating what I was writing above (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=495#p82843):
"1 new BS and 1 heavy cruiser sank one old battlecruiser and did significant damage to another new battleship, which as a consequence left the battlefield in order not to get annihilated. In return, the BS received relatively minor damage (which however forced her to abandon the operation). These are the plain facts, and fabricating numbers just adds personal interpretation"
1) PoW battle damages ("superficial") were much less "significant" than Bismarck's (correctly defined crippling for the mission): fact.
2) 2 British heavy cruisers avoided to join the action, being both within range just before or during it: demonstrated by Antonio's reconstruction.
3) PoW "annihilation" is pure speculation (as well as Bismarck's further damages had PoW continued the battle...): hypothetical scenario only.

[deletion by moderator Jurens] Mr.northcape correctly recognized thet PoW left the battlefield, not saying that she just "opened the range", as someone has theorized)

[material deleted by 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)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 977
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Byron Angel » Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:30 pm

This exchange has deteriorated into an exercise in perpetual repetition. No minds are going to be changed.

B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3321
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:52 am

Hello everybody,

regarding the upteenth "redactions by the "moderator" to my post (), I would kindly ask him to explain to everybody what's offensive is saying that a forum member has correctly "recognized that PoW left the battlefield, not just that she "opened the range" as someone has even theorized" ?


The same for my last sentence: while I can lightly be accused to be a "revisionist", I cannot say that someone trust a "fairy-tale" ?

I will however rephrase the sentence in: I understand that the old British "story", accounted for years, is very comfortable for some forum members, but it's time to look at truth.

If this is not fair enough, please explain why.


Finally I will NOT change my question : who is fabricating what here ? as there is NOTHING offensive in it after another forum member has accused me to fabricate figures, without been sanctioned by the "moderator", reporting his redactions to the webmaster.


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)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 977
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Byron Angel » Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:03 pm

I rest my case.

B

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by paul.mercer » Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:47 pm

Gentlemen,
As always I have the greatest respect for the views expressed in this forum, but it seems to me that we have now reached an impasse on this particular subject.
I have to say that while the technicalities of this debate has left any knowledge of this action that I thought I had far behind, however, there is one point I will not concede and that is the charge of cowardice/running away that has been leveled at Capt Leach. I thought that this particular point had been thoroughly examined and debated in another part of this Forum. But to reiterate, there is no question in my mind that he took his ship to sea knowing full well that she was not completely ready for battle, whether he was under pressure from Churchill or the Admiralty to do so may never be known, but it is clear to me that having seen Hood explode in front of him and the guns of two very powerful warships turning their guns on his ship that, with his own guns failing he had no choice but to try and save his ship from possible disaster which could have only taken one shell in a vital area to accomplish and it was a brave decision to make bearing in mind the possible consequences for him.
As you are no doubt aware there have been numerous books published on the Bismarck action, some have used whatever material is still available form official sources, others have just repeated what has been written before with their own variations in the hope that those who buy their book will do so because they will find a different version of the battle, but in the end it any version tends to rely heavily on the author’s views, opinion, or theories - call them what you will, that is all they are and after almost 78 years all they can be..
While I am happy to admit that I have neither the skill nor the knowledge to compete in this particular debate it does seem that Antonio and Alberto have made an extensive study of the battle and have put forward their conclusions to this Forum. These studies have been (and still are) being hotly contested by other members, which should have made for an interesting debate, but judging by the amount of deletions by the moderator, seems to have turned into a slanging match, which is a shame, particularly as it could lead to preventing others who wish to raise a debate on a different subject from doing so in case it happens to them.
Could we not agree that what has been put forward is an interesting ‘take’ on the subject by two knowledgeable people who have done a lot of study on it and it is their point of view/opinion/theory which deserves as much respect as anyone else’s? Whether or not we agree with it and after the passage of time and without Bismarck’s logs, to go down the route of trying to measure events to the last second (or even minute) during the heat of battle after 78 years is really a bit pointless and unlikely to be that accurate anyway.
Should we close this now or is this thread likely to go on to over a hundred by going around in circles like some others because no one will concede anything because their points of view are the only ones worth hearing?

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:07 pm

I would concur with immediately previous posts and suggest that, insofar we have now reached the stage where we simply seem to be arguing about what we are arguing about, this particular thread be closed.

I would therefore propose a voluntary closure to take effect 24 hours from now, i.e. at 12 noon Winnipeg time, 12 April. Between now and then, participants will be permitted to make one -- but only one -- additional 'summary' post as they see fit, subject, as always, to moderator review and/or redaction.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1805
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:49 am

Fellow Contributors,
Could we not agree that what has been put forward is an interesting ‘take’ on the subject by two knowledgeable people who have done a lot of study on it and it is their point of view/opinion/theory which deserves as much respect as anyone else’s?
Because the two knowledgeable people have failed, over several years of diligent and single-minded effort, to apparently persuade any other knowledgeable people posting on this site, that their allegations of cowardice, conspiracy and collusion bear any relation to reality, their theory does not deserve as much respect as any other. The observations by the other knowledgeable people on the manifest shortcomings of the interesting take are shouted down with a blizzard of personal insults including Hooligan and claims that anybody who does not accept it is stupid, ill-educated and believes in fairy stories.

I see at least half a dozen knowledgeable and prolific current posters, several of whom have supplied valuable original material during this protracted debate, who vehemently oppose treating A & A's theory with as much respect as any other. Several other valuable contributors, opposed to the untrammelled promotion of this interesting take and the unrestricted barrage of insults they were subjected to for merely pointing out A & A theories' numerous shortcomings have abandoned the site.

We were informed about a potential vote. Has it happened? That should decide it.

All the best

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

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by paul.mercer » Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:24 pm

To Wadinga and others,
If in my last post it was taken that I (inadvertently) suggested that Antonio and Alberto were the only knowledgeable contributors to this and other parts of the Forum, then of course I unreservedly apologize, I can assure you all that this is not the case, I have said on many occasions that I have the greatest respect for the knowledge and expertise of the contributors to this Forum.
Paul

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1805
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:34 pm

Fellow Contributors,

My summary post has been made- this is on process.

I did not for one moment assume Paul considered A & A to be the only knowledgeable contributors:

There have been many perceptive contributions, based on the conflicting evidence, including from him:
I do agree with Wadinga about the charges of timidity or even cowardice against Capt Leach and that PoW ‘ran away’ when she was still battleworthy.
Showing that he for one does not consider the case proved. Many others have posted their votes, anyone reading these threads can surely have an opinion and vote, knowledgeable or not.

What I find is particularly disturbing is that these charges are levelled by some who are amongst the most knowledgeable contributors, but their possession of knowledge does not necessarily make their selected process of examination and thus conclusions correct.

What is also extremely disturbing over the proposed voting basis is the Moderator's observation:
It would be nice to hear from a somewhat wider selection of readers regarding their overall evaluations of the hypotheses presented my [sic] Mssrs. Bonomi and Virtuani. It is my assumption that their votes would be 'proven' and 'proven', but that's technically just speculation
I do hope this was just a mischievous attempt to provoke "lurkers" into expressing an opinion, rather than a genuine assumption that non-voting equals approval.

All the best

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

Locked