PoW readiness for active service

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi Pgollin,
Many thanks for your and Alberto's replies, regarding the shell ring problem with DoY at North Cape, i accept what you said about the 'Extreme wave Movement', but this DoY was supposed to be one of the latest of the 'KG' battleships, so if she had to face a ship of similar size (Tirpitz) having any sort of problems with her guns could have been disastrous, so it would seem that not all of the problems were solved.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by alecsandros »

@Paul.mercer

You're right, but don't forget that the KGVs had active careers and, overall (all five of them) totalled many thousands of miles of ocean travelled, and many thousands of main artillery rounds expended in combat and in training. Therefore we have more knowledge about their 'behavior' then we have about other WW2 battleships, possibly any other WW2 battleship.

Especially in the kind of sea state in which Duke of York engaged Scharnhorst, I would imagine all contemporary battleships would suffer non-fired roudns because of the storm effects upon the firing ship, especially if the firing ship would advance bow-on (and mainly use it's forward batteries) against the enemy.

As a side note, I seem to remember a 1942 battleship firing exercise, conducted in the Pacific by USS Idaho. It was a practice called "firing to exhaustion", which involved the discharge of almost all of the ammunition existing in the ship's magazines. Sea state was calm, and the target was stationary (from what I remember). USS Idaho started firing very well , with 2 main turrets (2 x 3 guns), with some salvos fired at a rate of two per minute. However, as time went on and salvo after salvo was discharged in this exercise, crew fatigue set in and misfires increased, as the length of the average firing interval between salvoes increased as well. At the end of the 70-80 minutes continuous firing exercise, the battleship had nearly consumed it's ammo stock for the two turrets used, and the firing output efficiency (measured as percentage between actually discharged shots versus ordered shots) was about 75%. (comparable to what Duke of York achieved in 120 minutes of combat in extreme weather - not in training)
This exercise is described, IIRC, in Bill Jurens's excellent article about the evolution of battleship gunnery.
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by Bill Jurens »

@Mr. Virtuani:
it appears that the message you sent requested no further distribution due to copyright issues. If copyright issues were not a problem, one might infer that further distribution was permitted.

Were/are copyright issues actually a problem?If they were/are would not Dunmunro’s offense actually be to the copyright holder rather than yourself?

Bill Jurens
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Bill Jurens,

I don't care much of the "copyright" issue.

I have sent the material to Mr.Dunmunro privately, because he asked me privately, recommending him NOT to distribute / publish (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=15#p82952) and he has not kept his word (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=15#p82944).

This is (in my view) much more serious than "copyright", it's keeping one's word, that for me (a former Navy officer) is sacred. I see it's not the case for other people, possibly another "cultural" difference ?


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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
On Sunday I wrote to Alberto:
I realise that you perhaps feel duty bound not to reveal all the contents of the report, but does it not seem strange that after all this time it still remains confidential which must arouse suspicions as to why it was never made public - after all, in this day and age of nuclear weapons who would be bothered about 14" guns in quad turrets?
I believe some of the British services are still very coy about releasing information, so is this material still on the secret list and if so why after 78 years when it has no bearing on modern warfare?
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:55 pm @Bill Jurens,

I don't care much of the "copyright" issue.

I have sent the material to Mr.Dunmunro privately, because he asked me privately, recommending him NOT to distribute / publish (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=15#p82952) and he has not kept his word (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=15#p82944).

This is (in my view) much more serious than "copyright", it's keeping one's word, that for me (a former Navy officer) is sacred. I see it's not the case for other people, possibly another "cultural" difference ?


Bye, Alberto
The material in question is not classified, it is publicly accessible and was the subject of an active discussion on this board. This places me in a position where I can no longer freely participate in the discussion because of the material in my possession. In effect, being given this material silenced me and that was unacceptable to me. I didn't release the information, hitherto, as a courtesy to you, but that can only extend so far. You have to understand that you cannot compel silence on an issue by the partial release of information because it then creates an ethical dilemma and ultimately personal freedom of expression outweighs other considerations.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by dunmunro »

paul.mercer wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:43 am Hi Pgollin,
Many thanks for your and Alberto's replies, regarding the shell ring problem with DoY at North Cape, i accept what you said about the 'Extreme wave Movement', but this DoY was supposed to be one of the latest of the 'KG' battleships, so if she had to face a ship of similar size (Tirpitz) having any sort of problems with her guns could have been disastrous, so it would seem that not all of the problems were solved.
Most WW2 battleships had problems with their main armament on an ongoing basis and the KGV class was no exception. Electro-hydraulic machinery is inherently problematic under the conditions that a battleship main armament must function in and we can only speculate, based upon available information, that other battleship classes would have fared worse than DoY if placed in similar circumstances.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "You have to understand that you cannot compel silence on an issue by the partial release of information...In effect, being given this material silenced me "
(Extensive Redaction by moderator WJJ)


The info I had already posted (here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834&p=76840&hilit=barben#p76840 and following posts) gave already all relevant information (Mr.Cag, not someone of my side, for sure, agreed about that)
(Redaction by moderator WJJ)

Mr.Wadinga statement about the "poor green PoW that fired only 6 rounds per gun" (the part I did not post because I had read the full Vickers report from Mr.Wilkinson, accounting for the previous extensive trials) are proven wrong by the remaining part of the same report and by the report sent to Admiralty at the end of the early May trials: you can be sure that nobody will get these info from me anymore, except proven friends...


The only new info you and everybody has got from me (thanks to Paul Mercer kind request) is Mr.Wilkinson conclusions at the end of the trials:
"Trials were satisfactory, some minor faults were invariably found on such a mass of machinery, and even in times of peace these could be never wholly eliminated"
Note: in bold the part "lost" due to the relentless censoring activity of the "moderator", who has cut some words (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=15#p82942)...



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: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by pgollin »

.

Might I ask (as I have at least twice before) whether the FULL Vickers letter ( 20 - odd pages ??? ) does cover the interlocks issues (which the gunnery department felt was the real issue and took months to sort out, or, as has been implied, only covered the shell ring problem(s) ?

I am very confused.

.
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by Bill Jurens »

I remain a bit confused about the Wilkinson report issue. If copyright was not the problem, I remain uncertain as to why the content of the report should be withheld, or released only to “friends”. In other words, why was the report circulated, at least in part, to Dunmuro, with a restriction on further distribution in the first place? What harm might be done by circulating the report further if copyright issues were not a concern? It’s just information, after all...

Bill Jurens
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by Bill Jurens »

Duplicate post deleted WJJ
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

As I understand copyright law the administrators of Roskill's estate can control reproduction of Roskill's words, but nobody else's. They can control access to the physical copies of other people's writings to him, (many correspondence files remain closed), but not the content of those which have been made accessible or may be accessed elsewhere.

Wilkinson's report of behalf of his employers was sent to the Admiralty and becomes Crown property on delivery. It is not at all confidential today and could be made public at any time. Additional copies may exist at Vickers and in the PRO.
I remain uncertain as to why the content of the report should be withheld,


Mr Jurens: Are you truly uncertain why material is withheld on this website, in view of the contentious assertions of cowardice, conspiracy and cover-up made? There has been a consistent pattern of withholding information which may prove prejudicial to the successful publishing of those assertions, extending over several years.

The reason is plain, if redactworthy when plainly stated.
all relevant information
you can be sure that nobody will get these info from me anymore,
All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "why was the report circulated, at least in part, to Dunmunro, with a restriction on further distribution in the first place? "
If the "moderator" is unable to understand why it's important for a man to keep his word, it's his problem, not mine.

For the very last time, a copy of the material was acquired by me and I'm the only one who decides who can see it or not.
Mr.Dunmuro privately asked for it and I provided an excerpt asking not to distribute/publish due to the fact that I had signed not to do so when buying the material.
BTW, I'm the ONLY one who posted some excerpts: other members, having the same report, have not (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834&p=76840&hilit=barben#p76840).


Mr.Dunmunro has not kept his word.I would like the "moderator" to explain to everybody (if he can...) why he keeps redacting my posts, not censoring his personal behavior: My posts say ONLY the truth and the demonstration of what I say was duly provided (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=15#p82952).


The problem is that the so-called "moderation" of this forum is becoming more and more blatantly biased as a very senior memeber has perfectly synthesized here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523#p82924), forcing true contributors to leave forever (Antonio Bonomi) or censoring their posts, while his own side is left perfectly untouched, despite severe faults (like in this case).


Wadinga wrote: "As I understand copyright law........could be made public at any time"
...therefore, go to Kew, take the files and publish them (if still willing to do so, after having verified that they say exactly what I have synthetized) !

From me, they will be published (once acquired their copyright) in our next publication that will demonstrate how PoW was possibly not yet fully worked up but that she was quite well trained from gunnery viewpoint, as her shooting showed.



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)
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by alecsandros »

@Alberto
I suppose the Moderator is attempting to ponder the effects of the distribution of the report for the entire forum to see, weighed by the informal agreement that you and Duncan have discussed to in private.

My opinion is that it was wrong of Duncan to have re-distributed it, on basis of your private discussion. However, there is little that can be done now, as the copies have already been downloaded many times by many users... The shame rests on the shoulders of the man not keeping his word.

===

What is important, IMHO, in the trail of thoughts presented here, is not only the state of preparedness of Prince of Wales as a gunnery platform (Bismarck and Prinz Eugen also had green crews), but the situation opened at 6:03 in the morning, as Prince of Wales was disengaging out of the battle area, shrouded in chemical smoke.

At 6:03 , Prince of Wales was in a posture of 'the last defender', as Hood had sunk and Suffolk/Norfolk were not in position to stop or force the enemy to alter course. But Prince of Wales was disengaging at 27kts , bound East . Therefore, with the information existing at 6:03 for Leach and the other (surviving) seniors on board the British battleship, Bismarck and her consort were free to continue steaming South, towards the trans-Atlantic shipping routes... I have pondered about this for some time. I have tried to explain it in many ways (some have tried to argue that it was a 'feint retreat', others that it was a stratagem bound to lure Luetjens , in pursuit of the wounded bear, towards the powerfull naval squadron that Adm. Tovey was coordinating, etc), but , in the end, Capt. leach's own testimony carries the heaviest weight in my mind : "[...] Accordingly I turned away and broke off the action pending a more favourable opportunity" (ADM243/509 Art.22 paragraph 5). So it was a 'breaking off the action'.

Had the Bismarck not been damaged by the 14" shells from Prince of Wales, it was to be expected that Luetjens would have continued steaming at high speed , due South , and, had he received timely and correct intelligence reports, probably would have attempted to intercept one of the two large convoys transitting the area at the time. (one of which was protected by HMS Ramillies).

At the time of the breaking off of the action, Capt. Leach did not have information about the damage suffered by the Bismarck (this is learnt by interpolating ADM243/509 Art. 20 with Art.23 paragraph 1 and 2.

In conclusion, the breaking off of the action turned a tactical defeat into an operational defeat as well (as the enemy battleship was apparently un-impaired into disrupting the trade routes).

This was most likely thought about by the British Admiralty throughout the day of May 24th, hence the radio telegrams sent to V-Adm. Wake-Walker concerning 'decisions to re-engage [the enemy]'.
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by pgollin »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:33 am

"...therefore, go to Kew, take the files and publish them (if still willing to do so, after having verified that they say exactly what I have synthetized) !"



Two questions ( and a repeat - yet again )

1: I was under the impression that the Vickers report was in the Churchill Archive in Cambridge, you now indicate that it is at Kew - which is correct ?

2: IF you give a reference number then people could find it - so what is the reference ?

And, YET AGAIN,

Why doesn't the report cover the main problem, the interlocks ?

.
Locked