PoW readiness for active service

[Bill Jurens]

I think both sides have had ample opportunity to express their opinions regarding the ethical issues surrounding the release of the Wilkinson report, and the reasons for withholding all or portions thereof.

I would suggest further discussion revolve around the content of materials posted rather than its precise provenance, etc.

Further personal commentary risks redaction.

Bill Jurens

[Bill Jurens]

Mr. Bonomi has expressed, in some detail, some of my actions as moderator, and requested explanation.

Although some members, e.g. Mr. Bonomi, have chosen to withdraw from the forum, I think it an exaggeration to suggest that they have been “forced” to leave. The record will show that I explicitly invited Mr. Bonomi to return.

So far as redactions are concerned, these have, to the best of my ability, been restricted to issues revolving around tone and/or the presence of personal attacks rather than content. The style of some contributors has been such as to intermingle these two categories so that it is difficult to excise one without damaging some of the other.

If commentary were restricted to discussions related to historical and technical issues, redactions would probably not be required at all. The larger the proportion of purely personal and negatively-slanted commentary in postings, the larger in general, will be the number of deletions.

Readers should note that I would rather redact than possibly unfaithful or incorrectly rephrase. Nor can I with the tools at hand simply strike-through, leaving deletion often the only (and icreasingly onerous) option.

I hope the above helps to clarify things.

Bill Jurens

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Bill Jurens wrote: "The record will show that I explicitly invited Mr. Bonomi to return."

... but Antonio decided to leave anyway because by now in this forum only one side is protected, as some forum members are realizing and denouncing.
He has told me that "playing a football match against another team that does "faults" may still be possible, but playing against such a team + a referee that is part of the same opponent team is just a waste of...health"

Either it may have been just a problem of the moderator, having his personal view (fully in line with the RN fans, even suggesting them to adopt the "indeterminateness" line of defense when it was clear that no way out was given to these "adamant deniers" by evidences) and being simply unable to see the incontrovertibility of the reasons of the other side, or it may have been intentionally done (even when understanding that Antonio had demonstrated the true story): I don't know (and I don't care).


The final effect was that the "hooligans" have been allowed to provoke Antonio and to mock at his work, while he has been silenced for having answered with proven facts about some forum members... if this is not "forcing" someone to leave, let's try to call it in another way...


This for the "record"...


Bye, Alberto

[pgollin]

.

Alberto,

Please would you answer my questions re. the report and interlocks,

Thanks.

.

[northcape]

(even when understanding that Antonio had demonstrated the true story): I don't know (and I don't care).

Bye, Alberto

No, there was no "true story" demonstrated. Only a suggestion/model/scenario. We lack data to confirm if it is "true" or not.

[wadinga]

Fellow Contributors,

Having had several redactions made to my posts, which I had thought myself were commendably restrained, it is clear the moderator has done his very best to be impartial. If some feel they have suffered unduly, they should consider their record in the light of those who have genuinely been forced off this Forum and realise they themselves were vastly more sinners than sinned against.

Dunmunro's laudable decision to provide to publish the unredacted Barben letter, ignoring the NDA designed to bury the information, and highlighting the single main armament shoot of six rounds per gun, independently confirmed Paddon's observation of a single such exercise.

Dunmunro actually posted as early as Nov 1st 2010

I have read that PoW had only fired 5 RPG in gunnery practise. Brooks, in Alarm Starboard, states that PoW conducted intensive gunnery practise starting at the end of March, but I suspect that this was mostly drill, with little actual target shoots.

Why the 5/6 diversity I don't know.

Wilkinson's report is imprecise on the number of main armament rounds fired and bizarrely this has been used as an excuse to withhold this valuable Barben information as well. Cag was aware of this and posted the following detail from PoW's logs

Hi All,

As always hope updatesorry for delay and for small amount of info but as with you all finding 'spare' time is difficult.

Have trawled through PoW's logs for January,February and the beginning of March and here's what I've found so far,
On the 20th January PoW was pulled , by tugs onto bomb craters in Cammell Laird fitting out basin and went aground under P4 5.25 turret, she remained in the basin lightening the ship until the 27th when she was pulled into the stream and anchored alongsied the Princess stage where she took on oil. On the 28th an Admiralty/ Vickers gun trial party was taken aboard and she proceeded down the Mersey with Cammell Laird workers still on board with two of her props lashed to the quarterdeck. At around 20 past one her port engine was stopped due to hot bearings buttwo hours later she could resume half ahead power on both engines, during the 28th and the 29th the gun trials party tested her Hotchkiss 3pdr's pom poms and 5.25 inch turrets (Number of which is unspecified) at no point during this time was her main armament fired either full or half charge or full or sub calibre. She arrived at Rosyth on the 30th and was docked down by a quarter to five in No 1 dock and the gun trials party left the ship.
No armament drills or trials were carried out during February as the full ships complement was still not present, Captain Leach arrived on the 14th February and replaced Rear Admiral Hamilton. Whilst completion work was being carried out on the main armament a fire occurred in B turret shell room and extinguished. On the 21st a Commander Brown and Lieutenant-Commander Ross arrived on board to prepare to commence her armament proceedures and on the 25th the Princess Royal visited the ship, she had launched PoW in May 1939.

On the 1st March the final draft of her crew arrived by train from various sites in and around Devonport making PoW a 'Guz' ship (So named because of the locals of Devonport eating, or 'Guzzling' Cornish Pasties or 'Tiddley Oggies'). On the 2nd March the dock was flooded to allow her 14, 5.25 inch and pom pom armament to be 'Tilt tested' (To basically ensure that all armament was on the same level)this lasted over 5hrs and continued into the 3rd March when her crew was mustered on the forecastle deck to alot them their special parties. On the 4th the 14 inch TS crew (Transmitting Station) was mustered for 40 minutes and a gunnery officers divisional rounds took place which took an hour. Between five and six o clock the ship was undocked and secured to the west wall of the basin. On the 5th the colours were hoisted and on the 6th King George VI visited the ship as well as a second fire in B turret shell room! Between the 7th and the 8th the port and stb 5.25's had director rangefinder, fire control and operational trials and the 14 inch had turret to TS communications tests and work.
hope this helps will post more as time permits

,

Just a note to give you what I've found from the logs of PoW which I've condensed to make it easier to read. During March PoW had Comander Brown and Lieutenant Commander Ross and Harley aboard for gunnery trials. For her main armament 'full charge trials' were carried out (Similar to KG V DoY Anson and Howe I believe) whilst on transit from Rosyth to Scapa Flow on the 25th March, there are no details apart from the mention that they were trials and this was the only firings carried out from January. From the 25th March until the 31st PoW carried out 1 hr and 18 minutes of 5.25 firing, 1hr 48mins of pom pom firing, 3 mins of 3pdr firing 1hr 13mins of UP firing. Her crew carried out during the whole of March 6hrs 46mins of gunnery drill, unfortunately it is not specified of what kind. They also carried out 29hrs 40mins of trials associated with the whole armament and 34hrs of other trials including Paravane, De-Gaussing, Walrus launching/recovery/towing, main and cruising engine, compass, steering and turning and AA recognition and ranging.

During the 1st April the Cammell Laird workers left the ship and 51 Vickers Armstrong workers joined to work on her main armament turrets etc. During the whole of April her crew carried out 4 rounds of fire from A turret, and a further 3hrs 35mins of sub calibre and 1hr 28 mins of full calibre reduced charge main armament firing. A total of 11hrs 37mins of 5.25 firing and 32mins of Bofors firing. Her crew carried out 14hrs 40mins of unspecified gunnery drill, and spent 38hrs 50 mins of other trials including air recognition, RDF/WT trials, Walrus, Paravane, towing from astern, night action stations, collision and did RiX exercises.

From the 1stMay until she sailed on the 21st the crew carried out 2hrs 27mins of sub calibre and 1hr and 3mins of full calibre full charge main armament firing (Grand total 8hrs 33 mins), 12hrs 16mins of 5.25 firing 7mins of pom pom firing, and 40 mins of unspecified gunnery drill. They also carried out 20hrs 32mins of other trials including Demolition party trials, oiling destroyers, steering and turning, Walrus, De-Gaussing, Paravane, night action stations, they also did RiX exercises.
As always hope update sorry for delay and for small amount of info but as with you all finding 'spare' time is difficult.

As is clear from this, despite the specific intent to suggest that the Wilkinson report gives details of lots of main armament practice, whilst hiding the actual content, it doesn't, and the log shows very little activity indeed.

The most intriguing point is the idea that any main armament firing was done on the 25th March in transit to Scapa, when one, possibly two turrets were not even commissioned until later in April, after 51 workers had been drafted aboard to make things work on the 1st April.

Cag was a true, extremely valuable and selfless contributor to this thread and those who wish to know why he is no longer here should read back through his posts.

All the best

wadinga

[Byron Angel]

Thanks Wadinga for digging out Cag's posts. It definitely seems like we lost a valuable and knowledgeable contributor with his departure.

Has anyone noticed the UBoat.net web-page for HMS Prince of Wales - https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4071.html - ? It gives a fairly detailed day-by-day account of PoW's activities from her commissioning to her departure from Scapa Flow in company with HMS Hood on 22 May 41, foot-noted as being based upon data purportedly drawn from ADM documents. To the degree that it fits in with Cag's data (as far as her "working up" period is concerned) the following is interesting -

28 Jan 41 - departs Liverpool for Rosyth.
30 Jan 41 to 4 Mar 41 - in dock at Rosyth (fitting out with radar).
24 Mar 41 - departs Rosyth for Scapa Flow (w/ half normal crew complement).
25 Mar 41 - Arrives Scapa Flow
27 Mar 41 - Steering trials inside Scapa Flow.
29 Mar 41 - Compass trials off Scapa Flow.
31 Mar 41 - Full power trials off Scapa Flow.
08 Apr 41 - Unspecified exercises off Scapa Flow.
14 Apr 41 - Gunnery exercises inside Scapa Flow.
15 Apr 41 - Gunnery exercises inside Scapa Flow.
16 Apr 41 - Gunnery exercises inside Scapa Flow.
17 Apr 41 - Gunnery exercises and RDF trials inside Scapa Flow.
18 Apr 41 - Gunnery exercises and RDF trials off Scapa Flow.
23 Apr 41 - a/c launch and recovery exercises inside Scapa Flow.
24 Apr 41 - RDF trials off Scapa Flow.
25 Apr 41 - Unspecified exercises off Scapa Flow.
01 May 41 - DG trials inside Scapa Flow.
02 May 41 - Gunnery exercises inside Scapa Flow.
05 May 41 - Gunnery exercises inside Scapa Flow.
06 May 41 - Gunnery exercises inside Scapa Flow.
07 May 41 - Unspecified exercises off Scapa Flow.
12 May 41 - Gunnery exercises inside Scapa Flow.
16 May 41 - Exercise outside Scapa Flow, including full caliber 5.25in shoot.
17 May 41 - Returns to Scapa Flow
22 May 41 - Departs Scapa Flow in company with HMS Hood for Denmark Strait

By the above accounting, she spent approximately 51 days total in completing various trials and exercising ship and crew, and, of those 51 days, not more than 11 days could have spent in gunnery exercises of any sort (main battery/secondary battery/AA battery inside or outside Scapa Flow). Of those 11 days, 8 days involved exercises described as being undertaken inside Scapa Flow, which suggests to me that those 8 days were likely to have been either sub-caliber shoots or AA exercises. If sub-caliber practices, I'm guessing that the main battery ammunition-handling machinery may well not have been involved. That theoretically leaves only three days for any full-caliber main and secondary battery shoots

Note - My position on the employment of sub-caliber shoots inside Scapa Flow is based upon WW1 RN practices when full-caliber practices were conducted at sea west of Scapa (and later in Moray Firth). If anyone can clarify, I'd be grateful.

More mystery and confusion.

B

[Algonquin-R17]

Cag was a true, extremely valuable and selfless contributor to this thread and those who wish to know why he is no longer here should read back through his posts.

Yes I agree, having read every word he posted, Cag went to great lengths to present his well researched opinions and queries in a non offensive and self deprecating manner. A very unique contributor.

A significant loss to the Forum.

Undoubtably he would still be contributing to our knowledge had Mr. Jurens been moderating during that tumultuous period.

Perhaps now he can be enticed back?

Bob

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Ignoring the insinuations that are left untouched by the moderator, I kindly remind to everybody that it was me and not Mr.Cag to post the extract of Barben report (go there and see who really provided more info to this forum...viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834&p=76840&hilit=barben#p76840).

Wadinga wrote: "Dunmunro's laudable decision to provide to publish the unredacted Barben letter"

...laudable decision not to keep his word... This speaks loud about the "ethic" here...

Wadinga wrote: "Wilkinson's report is imprecise on the number of main armament rounds fired..."

...but unfortunately for Mr.Wadinga the report sent to the Admiralty at the end of the extensive gunnery trials (thanks to Byron Angel for providing the dates of these "early May gunnery trials ) provide the full detail...
The "story" of the 5 or 6 rounds is simply false and part of the "fairy-tale" the British have easily accepted to justify Leach's timidity (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=30#p82970).
Mr.Wilkinson (in his 18 pages annotations vs the 2 pages of Mr.Barben report...) is very clear about the early May gunnery trials (actually firing the main guns) that were held and whose results were "satisfactory" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=30#p82964) and considered enough to send a definitive report to the Admiralty (on board there were Admiralty reps as well).


A pity that, with your denial mocking behavior, you have both forced the main contributor (Antonio) to leave the forum forever and you have chosen not to be presented with any further interesting info... (this applies in special mode to Mr.pgollin, (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&p=82981#p82976) repeated requests, of course...)


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Fellow contributors,

It has been said:

I kindly remind to everybody that it was me and not Mr.Cag to post the extract of Barben report (go there and see who really provided more info to this forum.

and considerable and heartfelt thanks are due for this, although with the knowledge that since another Forum member had actually visited the Cambridge archive, it was necessary to minimise the information released from the Barben letter, by supplying only a redacted version, leaving out the information about the 60 shot trial. Since the discussion at that time was specifically about the failures during the action detailed by Barben, this was a damage limitation exercise, and Cag did not notice and supply the redacted trials information.

(thanks to Byron Angel for providing the dates of these "early May gunnery trials ) provide the full detail...

Indeed they do provide some detail , and combining Cag's information about the duration of the single May 16th main gunnery shoot (date- thanks Byron)

1hr and 3mins of full calibre full charge main armament firing

and knowing from Dunmunro that only 6 rounds per gun were fired during this effort, we can see how gently and slooowly the guns and their ammunition supply were handled to achieve this "perfect shoot" recorded by Barben. Perhaps someone could create a spreadsheet to derive a Rate of Fire.

Other drills and whatever reduced charge firing took place did not stress the mechanisms hardly at all, and yet the Vickers personnel were still required to work on the mounts up to and including the Denmark Straits action.

Whereas the Baltic was a safe haven for Bismarck to carry out her extensive gunnery practice, with the AVKS boffins on board for eight weeks, inspecting what was obviously a functioning system, PoW only ventured out into U-boat or aircraft attack prone, potentially mined waters outside the Flow on two brief occasions, and most of that time was spent on 5.25 and lower calibre shoots as detailed in the material supplied by Cag and Byron.

All the best

wadinga

[alecsandros]

Whereas the Baltic was a safe haven for Bismarck to carry out her extensive gunnery practice, with the AVKS boffins on board for eight weeks, inspecting what was obviously a functioning system, PoW only ventured out into U-boat or aircraft attack prone, potentially mined waters outside the Flow on two brief occasions, and most of that time was spent on 5.25 and lower calibre shoots as detailed in the material supplied by Cag and Byron.

… Bismarck's AVKS mission was cut short , lasting a total of two weeks, due to the urgency of her deployment to Rheinubung.
The (main battery) practice firings executed inside AVKS are noted in the reconstructed warlog in the following dates:
March 19th, 20th, 25th and 27th. All sub-calibre firing.
There are other (main battery) gunnery trials executed (as of her warlog), between Nov16-30th (exact dates not known. Details are: breaking in of the guns, sub-calibre firings. One source , IIRC, mentions one day of firing, of only a few rounds, because the shock blast caused immediate superstructure damage that needed repairs in port), and between Apr 16th - 30th (sub-calibre firings). No evidence of full calibre firing, so far at least.

The AVKS mission produced a report, dated April 2nd 1941, which noted numerous failures of the main battery system(s) (including breakdowns of the main shell elevators, large quantities of water and smoke entering the main turrets, inadequate positioning of the AA guns, inadequate correlation between main radar set and fire control computer, errors in the remote control firing system, etc - all of which were requested to be rectified. It is unknown if they had the time to rectify the problems until Rheinubung. In any case, the fact that, in her captain own words , "the crew completely lacked real combat experience" and that the "state of preparations [of the crew] compares favourably to that of a full-scale battle inspection in the good years of peace time" , shows that the mighty Bismarck was far from being a fully efficient ship... Her repeated technical breakdowns (Sept 1940 to May 1941) are a testament to this as well).

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "and knowing from Dunmunro that only 6 rounds per gun were fired during this effort..."

...and knowing this info is simply wrong, as many more rounds were fired, as proven by the full Vickers report (where the "Barben" 6 rounds trials were only the last ones and were neither inspected by the Admiralty staff nor included in the detailed report sent to Admiralty) + by the Admiralty report itself, the bluff of Mr.Wadinga (to state that the "poor green PoW was unprepared to fight the Bismarck") is over.


Bye, Alberto

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
Re 'Combat experience, would it be fair to say that at this stage of the war very few 'heavy' ships on either side had actual combat experience?
Also, as this subject is about PoW's readiness for active service; again, would it not be fair to say that had she had all her 10 guns working properly that although she may have been severely damaged in a prolonged battle, the chances are that she would have inflicted a lot more damage on Bismarck, therefore she only withdrew because the Captain realised that she was not capable of continuing because of the problems arising with the guns which he knew were suspect ?

[pgollin]

... (this applies in special mode to Mr.pgollin, (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&p=82981#p82976) repeated requests, of course...) .....

1: So you will not clarify which of your claims (the letter came from the Cambridge archive AND from Kew) is actually correct ?

2: You will not give a reference (standard if quoting documents, and a specified requirement for quoting TNA:PRO or Churchill archive documents !

3: You still seem to be happy with a supposedly comprehensive report that totally ignores the main problem with the guns - the interlocks.

Item 2 (the requirement to quote the relevant reference) is particularly worrying.

.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Paul,

I would say that she withdrew because her Captain was not confident in the guns efficiency / his crew preparation over a prolonged engagement. He never said that the guns were actually firing badly, he said he had in mind a"possible" loss of output (see his official report below)

Leach_decision.jpg (51.52 KiB) Viewed 1073 times

Apparently his GO (McMullen) opinion was different, when he sent the boy to tell to the Captain that the ship's gunnery was ok.


Bye, Alberto