PoW readiness for active service

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

Moderator: 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 »

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "...my comment about KGV possibly having been "rushed out the door" in order to be available for Operation Parcel", is a theory on my part and should not be interpreted in any way as "fact"..."
Correct, the facts are listed here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=195#p83200) after the reference to your post, with a comparison between KGV and PoW key dates.
They are crude dates and periods of training, showing that KGV got less time before being declared "ready for active service" than PoW.

I'm just waiting for an answer (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=195#p83211) in order to be able to add an agreed date for the full power trails for both ships...



Bill Jurens wrote while redacting : "Extensive commentary, including attack on moderator, redacted WJJ"
I apologize if I was not clear in my request.
Asking how long the "moderator" will tolerate rudeness and provocations (3 clear cases had been presented before being redacted...) should not be read in any way as an "attack" to him.
It should be "constructively" intended as a strong demand for stopping provokers, on both sides, as soon as possible to avoid escalations, in the light of the new forum "policy".


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:24 pm, edited 7 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)
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by paul.mercer »

pgollin wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:42 pm
paul.mercer wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:36 am .

.... As I posted before, the failures of the 14" at North Cape as reported in Tarrants book, would suggest that the problems were ongoing ........


.

.

No.

.
Hi pgollin,
I'm not sure what you mean when you posted 'No', the report of the gun performance in Tarrants book on the Duke of York at North Cape was pretty damming, especially as it happened some time after the Bismarck 'episode', surely the RN must have obtained enough knowledge of what was wrong by then and should have rectified them - or was the problem so 'ongoing' that they could not do so?
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by HMSVF »

paul.mercer wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:51 am
Alberto Virtuani wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:51 am Hi Paul,

I would say that the data posted up to now point to KGV to have been rushed into active service, while PoW had a bit more time to get prepared. Of course in wartime all ships are rushed into service, but PoW (except the fact that she had to face a battle few days after she had been declared "ready") seems not to have been treated worse than all other ships of the class, the contrary instead.

Whether this was due to Captain Leach's reluctance to accept weapons that he knew (as former Ordnance Director) had inherent design problems, this is just my suspect, fully explaining the delay (vs KGV).


Bye, Alberto
Thanks Alberto.
I still wonder if because of the imminent threat of Bismarck 'getting out' he was under pressure to accept the ship, despite knowing her lack of battle readiness and as I posted before, the RN had so much confidence in Hood that they thought she could deal with Bismarck on her own but PoW could provide a backup and give the ship and her crew some useful battle experience?

A fair argument. Up till May 1941 the 2 sisters had turned away from action against Malaya,Rodney and Ramillies.

Bismarck is completed and Tirpitz is as far as the British are aware not far behind. I’m not surprised that much effort was put into getting these 2 ships completed ASAP. That KGV didn’t have as a protracted birth isn’t really in dispute is it? She really didn’t do that much during that time,she wasn’t sent to the Med was she...

But how many battleships have gone into action with ship workers still on board,still carrying out adjustments? (Genuine question)

Can’t be that many.
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,
HMSVF wrote: "how many battleships have gone into action with ship workers still on board,still carrying out adjustments? "
The question is absolutely correct. I think none.

The fact here is that PoW was declared "ready for Fleet service" on May 21, 1941 and still carried Vickers workmen on board during the battle, only 3 days later.

KGV was declared "ready" on December 11, then during the second part of December and until January 15 she was...
"...At Scapa where working up continued along with trials and remedial work on her main armament"
(https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-01BB-KGV.htm)

Whether workers were on board during this period is not clear yet, but the "remedial works" to the 14" mountings make the presence of Vickers personnel on board very probable. Had she had to go out on December 14 to intercept and fight an enemy, she would have had workers on board as PoW.
If Vickers personnel was not working on KGV at any time after December 11, then she would have had simply much more severe problems than PoW fighting an enemy on December 14, as PoW final gunnery trials were "satisfactory" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&p=82991&hilit= ... ory#p82991), whaile KGV were apparently not fully "satisfactory" and needed remedial work.


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: 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: Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:09 pm Hello everybody,
HMSVF wrote: "how many battleships have gone into action with ship workers still on board,still carrying out adjustments? "
The question is absolutely correct. I think none.

The fact here is that PoW was declared "ready for Fleet service" on May 21, 1941 and still carried Vickers workmen on board during the battle, only 3 days later.

KGV was declared "ready" on December 11, then during the second part of December and until January 15 she was...
"...At Scapa where working up continued along with trials and remedial work on her main armament"
(https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-01BB-KGV.htm)

Whether workers were on board during this period is not clear yet, but the "remedial works" to the 14" mountings make the presence of Vickers personnel on board very probable. Had she had to go out on December 14 to intercept and fight an enemy, she would have had workers on board as PoW.
If Vickers personnel was not working on KGV at any time after December 11, then she would have had simply much more severe problems than PoW fighting an enemy on December 14, as PoW final gunnery trials were "satisfactory" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&p=82991&hilit= ... ory#p82991), whaile KGV were apparently not fully "satisfactory" and needed remedial work.


Bye, Alberto
Rosyth to service:

KGV: Oct 17 - Jan 15 = ~90 days

PoW: Jan 30 - May 21 = ~110 days

DoY: Sept 10 - Dec 9 = ~90 days

However, both KGV and DoY were detached from the Home Fleet to carry VIPs to the USA, and thus were given extra time in service to train their crews without any likelihood of engaging in combat.
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,

"Commissioning" to "Readiness for Service" (the "trip" to Rosyth is not a formal step and we speak "readiness" not "first mission"):

KGV: October 1st, 1940 - December 11th = 71 days
PoW: January 19th, 1941 - May 21st = 122 days
DoY: August 19, 1941 - November 1st = 73 days

There is a longer work-up period for PoW than for the other before being declared "ready". Why ?

I have already said that PoW was "unlucky" to have to face Bismarck 3 days after, but when a ship is accepted and declared ready, it may happen that she is requested to accept a fight. Leach did not accept it.


Still waiting for an answer here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=195#p83211) for the date of the full power trials for PoW...


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: 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: Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:59 pm Hello everybody,

"Commissioning" to "Readiness for Service" (the "trip" to Rosyth is not a formal step and we speak "readiness" not "first mission"):

KGV: October 1st, 1940 - December 11th = 71 days
PoW: January 19th, 1941 - May 21st = 122 days
DoY: August 19, 1941 - November 1st = 73 days

There is a longer work-up period for PoW than for the other before being declared "ready". Why ?

I have already said that PoW was "unlucky" to have to face Bismarck 3 days after, but when a ship is accepted and declared ready, it may happen that she is requested to accept a fight. Leach did not accept it.


Still waiting for an answer here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=195#p83211) for the date of the full power trials for PoW...


Bye, Alberto
You are welcome to state any numbers you want. I pointed out the time from leaving Rosyth to the time of it's first mission.

Rosyth to service (first mission):

KGV: Oct 17 - Jan 15 = ~90 days

PoW: Jan 30 - May 21 = ~110 days

DoY: Sept 10 - Dec 9 = 90 days

However, both KGV and DoY were detached from the Home Fleet to carry VIPs to the USA, and thus were given extra time in service to train their crews without any likelihood of engaging in combat.
Arriving at Rosyth in an unfinished state with a partial crew is really not relevant. Admiralty deployment decisions were based upon current intelligence of likely KM deployments. PoW was in the unfortunate position of being forced into a combat mission without adequate training time.
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 are welcome to state any numbers you want....PoW was in the unfortunate position of being forced into a combat mission without adequate training time."
I have already said that PoW was unlucky, having to fight a powerful enemy 3 days after her "readiness" and for sure not at the peak of her efficiency. Btw, you too "are welcome to state any numbers you want"... (?)

However, surely she was not particularly "rushed out of the door". Both the other two ships were more than PoW.

Question is why PoW got more training compared to her sisters, in time of war and with the need to have her joining the Fleet asap: nobody has provided any technical credible explanation (because none exists...), therefore my opinion (that it was due to Leach's resistance to declare her ready) is more than justified.

Leach was Ordnance Director, while KGV was still having problems with her main guns and he resisted as long as he could to declare her "ready": he was simply not confident enough in his weapon, and he fully demonstrated it in front of the enemy on May 24 (even writing his "fears" in clear in his official report, to which Tovey had to add something more "solid" to justify the disengagement).

Still no answer (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=195#p83211)... let's hope to get one, soon or later.


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: 1658
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by Byron Angel »

My opinion -
KGV, first in class, was (IMO) "rushed out the door" for Operation Parcel (not a combat operation). PoW was second of her class to launch and simply by happenstance was afforded the luxury of more time to work up and resolve her persistent main armament issues ..... until the impending Operation Rheinubung came to the attention of the Admiralty. At that point, everything was once again placed on rush status, as had been the case with KGV. I personally do not believe that her 21 May 41 official report to CinC Home Fleet as being ready for Fleet service 24 hrs before departure to pursue Bismarck - with major problems with main armament persisting and Vickers Armstrong staff still aboard - was an innocent coincidence.

B
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,
Byron Angel wrote: " I personally do not believe that her 21 May 41 official report to CinC Home Fleet as being ready for Fleet service 24 hrs before departure to pursue Bismarck - with major problems with main armament persisting and Vickers Armstrong staff still aboard - was an innocent coincidence."
I agree with the above statement. Leach had to give up and declared the ship "service ready", due to the incumbent Bismarck operation.
It is only logical that any Captain would like to have more time to prepare his crew and to test his equipment before going in battle. Possibly (even more than) one full year training is needed to achieve the peak of the efficiency after the completion of a big ship. Leach was given this opportunity only until there was an urgent need to have PoW available.

When PoW was declared "ready", she had had already much more time than KGV to train and to prepare for "readiness" but the only big problem, the unreliability of the 14" mountings, had been not yet solved on both ships. If it was ever solved (that has been claimed but not fully demonstrated IMHO), it was only well after the Bismarck operation.



Leach was surely aware of the problems of the 14" turrets from his previous assignment as Ordnance Director (exactly when KGV was declared ready but continued to have problems and "remedial work" on board: https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-01BB-KGV.htm).

He took the command of PoW on February 15, 1941, knowing about the "problem" and delayed the "readiness" of PoW (due by around March, 20, based on KGV timing) to relentlessly try to fix it, with 7 weeks "day and (lately) night" exercises and requesting the presence on board of the Vickers technicians, but when it was clear Bismarck was going out, he had to give up.

However, despite his declaration, he went in battle with all all his "fears" still in mind and he did what he did (writing this reason in his report to explain his decision and thus forcing Tovey to embellish it providing "solid" (but totally invented) justifications for the disengagement).

The unusual message sent by McMullen to him through the "boy" (https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80010751) is clearly showing that the ship G.O. was aware of his superior's lack of confidence in his weapons (that Leach had probably already shared with him) and he immediately felt the need to re-assure his Captain that the guns were not a problem at the time of the decision to break off the engagement.


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,
Alberto wrote:
When PoW was declared "ready", she had had already much more time than KGV to train and to prepare for "readiness" but the only big problem, the unreliability of the 14" mountings, had been not yet solved on both ships. If it was ever solved (that has been claimed but not fully demonstrated IMHO), it was only well after the Bismarck operation.
Re one of my previous posts on the problems encountered by Duke of York at North Cape I wrote:
Three failures in battle, on three different occasions with three different ships of the same class surely cannot be a triumph for the designers.
So i wonder if Alberto is correct in suspecting that the problems were never solved and were ongoing throughout the war, but were never again really tested in a ship to ship battle where perhaps speed in reloading was more important than if the ship was merely bombarding ?
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 »

Paul Mercer wrote: "So i wonder if Alberto is correct in suspecting that the problems were never solved and were ongoing throughout the war, but were never again really tested in a ship to ship battle..."
Hi Paul,
I'm sure some modification were done on KGV class ships (among the others, to augment clearances of the shell ring), however, as you correctly said, I'm not sure this was enough to definitely solve the problem.

I'm not an expert of the Cape North battle. Mr.Dunmunro has stated (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&p=83145&hilit= ... jam#p83145) that the same problem did not happen on that occasion on DoY and Alec (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&p=83038&hilit= ... nce#p83038) has pointed out that her performance, in terms of output loss, was not so bad in that specific situation.

However I don't know whether the RoF of DoY guns was very high or not: I suspect not (radar spotting of fall of shells was anyway necessary and corrections were almost continuously needed due to Scharnhorst avoiding maneuvers) and this would explain why the problem did not arise.
It's well possible that, after May 1941, in order to avoid the jamming of the shell ring, the RN had not only modified the clearances but also issued operative procedures preventing the rotation of the shell ring while the ships were hard turning (bad weather seems to have had less effect on this problem, as KGV did not jam her turrets until she turned 180°, despite the bad weather on May 27).
If RoF was not extreme at Cape North, it would have left enough time to maneuver the shell ring only when the ship was on a straight course.

As you correctly said, bombarding a shore position doesn't require a very high RoF (and allows for safely locking the shell ring while turning without appreciable consequences), thus the other gunnery performance of the class are IMO not fully comparable to PoW on May 24, 1941 and to KGV three days after.


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: 2472
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

It has been perceptively pointed out (by Alecsandros) that limited resources for the second ship may result in delays because efforts were concentrated on completing the first. Prince of Wales was laid down on the same day as KG V but launched 3 months later . As a year of crisis 1940 resulted in many shortages
"Commissioning" to "Readiness for Service" (the "trip" to Rosyth is not a formal step and we speak "readiness" not "first mission"):

KGV: October 1st, 1940 - December 11th = 71 days
PoW: January 19th, 1941 - May 21st = 122 days
DoY: August 19, 1941 - November 1st = 73 days
It has already been observed that the so-called commissioning date is irrelevant for a part finished vessel. There is no evidence to say KGV's or DoY's unfinished state was precisely the same as Pow's unfinished state. Therefore such a comparison is invalid.

What relevance does the term "formal step" mean in this situation? The formal step of accepting a ship from builders on completion, when all systems have been trialled and found to work as per specification, in peacetime, is well understood. Shovelling a ship out of the yard when just about capable of moving itself with a programme of completion work including fitting of propellers and with an army of civilian workers necessary to complete that work is not compatible with such a "formal step".

Dunmunro's comparison:
Rosyth to service (first mission):

KGV: Oct 17 - Jan 15 = ~90 days

PoW: Jan 30 - May 21 = ~110 days

DoY: Sept 10 - Dec 9 = 90 days

However, both KGV and DoY were detached from the Home Fleet to carry VIPs to the USA, and thus were given extra time in service to train their crews without any likelihood of engaging in combat.
is vastly more valid. PoW's first mission was being tested by battle as a warship, not steaming about as a cruise ship.

The demonstrable failure of the guns and their loading systems during the action is clear, and once again the old shibboleth;
The unusual message sent by McMullen to him through the "boy
"

is dragged out as if meant anything. A runner was often sent in battle situations when communications had broken down. McMullen could not get a response from the Compass Platform and sent a personal message that "Guns are OK" which referred to the only bit of his system he had any knowledge of, ie the DCT and communications to the TS. He had no knowledge of which guns were firing and the problems down below, or that the CP was destroyed and most of the personnel dead, dying or wounded. As we know he rescinded his uninformed opinion when aware of the real situation.
[font style edit WJJ]

Since we have established there was no "formal step" such as a vessel running trials under a civilian flag before being accepted, what date a full power trial took place on has little relevance.

David Brown (RCNC) in The Design and Construction of British Warships 1939-1945 Vol 1 says PoW had hers on March 31st running for a 4 hour period at 42,100 tons developing 111,600 shp at 228 rpm and making 27.6-28.0 kts.

It was this running that obviously allowed the Cammell Laird workers to go home the following day, and to be replaced by the Vickers workers to complete the installation of the turrets, now that the electrics and hydraulics for the ship were complete to a point where their work was no longer needed. Tarrant lists some of many tests which were waived and calls this "a dangerous expedient". He then mentions a further period of "full power trials" on the 8th May.

R A Burt British Battleships 1919-1945 Revised edition gives no date for PoW trial but uses the "completion date " March 31st as many others do. he gives different figures to Brown 42,650 tons 111,900 shp 27.5 kts for Preliminary steam trials.

It may well be that a second machinery trial was carried out on the 8th May, we have phot evidence PoW was outside Scapa on that day.

I am now waiting for the comparative "completion work required" lists down to the last light bulb installation for KGV and PoW to prove they both needed precisely the same amount of work to be "finished" as well as details of the manpower resources to achieve this instead of unsupported accusations like
and he resisted as long as he could to declare her "ready": he was simply not confident enough in his weapon,
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,
Wadinga wrote: "There is no evidence to say KGV's or DoY's unfinished state was precisely the same as Pow's unfinished state"
As well there is no evidence whatsoever that PoW was more incomplete than the other two, the contrary.

Either we get meaningful reliable data supporting PoW being later in her completion (the only "information" posted by Mr.Wadinga up to now were...1) that propellers were missing during trip to Rosyth (but it was true for both ships) and... 2) that PoW was able to run full power trials almost 2 months before her "readiness", while KGV did the same trials just the 2 days before her "readiness", pointing to PoW much more complete than KGV)
or PoW just had simply more time to train and exercise, thanks to Leach's resistance and to the lack of an urgent operation for her.


Wadinga wrote: "is dragged out as if meant anything....McMullen could not get a response from the Compass Platform and sent a personal message...."
not caring of the above shouting (bold is forbidden and relentlessly redacted due to the new forum policy...) about a fact that evidently annoys so much for its evidence causing risible explanations (btw, the CP was not destroyed, just pierced, and was in action again in short time),

it's strange that the "boy" one was the only accounted "personal message" sent to Leach on that occasion: no stoker from the engine room, no seaman from the damage control center, no one from any other place in the ship from the Executive Officer, to say that any other system was ok: just the one from a Gunnery Officer that, feeling the ship turning hard, understands that his Captain's fear about guns reliability had the upper hand over his duty getting "furious" (his words, not mine, not surely "furious" for being unable to contact the CP, I guess).

McMullen's fury in the heat of the action means a lot, even if later he got aligned to the "cover-up".


Wadinga wrote: "unsupported accusations like " and he resisted as long as he could to declare her "ready": he was simply not confident enough in his weapon,""
Unfortunately, the "accusation" is very well supported by... Leach's himself in his report (from ADM234/509) where he himself said that the decision to disengage came from 2 fears that were in his mind before the action (+ from the Hood loss and together with the estimated "proximity" (?) of Tovey)... Please read it and accept what Leach (not me) has written regarding his confidence in his weapon.

Leach_decision.jpg
Leach_decision.jpg (51.52 KiB) Viewed 775 times

Obviously such a report (speaking of "fears in his mind" and not of actual problems) could not be shown by itself to Pound (who wanted to understand whether "PoW was right breaking off her engagement") and Tovey was forced to write point 19, in the same final report, his way, adding some more "solid" reasons to support the decision to disengage a battleship from her fight with the enemy (by intentionally changing the real events timing and sequence).


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: 2472
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

I am frequently finding material disappearing (redacted?) between the entry pane and the preview. Applying bold or any other style in the entry pane reinstates the missing text. It has no other significance. I have noted some other's posts have stopped halfway through a word.

Sorry, why does running the engines in March make the recorded delivery date of the last two turrets into service in late April invalid? The Vickers personnel are working on the turrets, the Cammell-Laird people on other systems. This confusion might be understandable in somebody with no knowledge of ships and the sea but…………..

As well there is no evidence whatsoever
for
no stoker from the engine room, no seaman from the damage control center, no one from any other place in the ship from the Executive Officer, to say that any other system was ok
:

Sam Wood turned up to help in the Charnel House that was the Compass Platform and Air defence Station. Ears are "pierced", places where human bodies are completely destroyed are something else. BTW there is a nice picture on the IWM site of KGV's CP and the window slot is little bigger than a man's head. Amazing a 15" projectile could get through it causing so little damage to the upper and lower surfaces.

All the best

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