This post was in preparation prior to the moderator's statement.Alberto Virtuani wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 9:28 pmHello everybody,
I would agree with Paul Mercer, however I see that someone insists in posting statements that are known to be incorrect, and I don't think this is a serious way to discuss in a forum:
Speculation based on nothing. We know nothing of KGV output. No ship has 100% output when firing in action and firing fast: PoW was firing much faster than KGV on May 27 (1.9 vs 1.7 salvo per minute, despite the much longer range....). At best Bismarck had an 89% output (104 ordered shots), at worst 83% (112 shots). PoW had 75%: not brilliant, not so bad to justify any "retreat", as the "furious" McMullen judged too.Dunmunro wrote: "KGV would have had nearly 100% output (and probably full output from the 5.25in guns) and a functioning type 284 radar "
The 284 radar was functioning, it simply had no time to warm up, having been switched on only few minutes before the engagement due to radio silence (please read again and digest what Dave Saxton kindly explained viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82290&hilit=warm+up#p82290). PoW 284 radar worked fine few hours later. KGV radar would have behaved in the same identical way.
You keep trying to list incorrect things (already proven wrong several times...) just to justify Leach and I will not counter each of them again and again. The only "historical record" saying she was not fine is the intentionally incorrect point 19 of Adm.Tovey's despatches.Dunmunro wrote: "you keep trying to spin that PoW was fine prior to the turn, but the historical record states otherwise."
PoW was simply in better conditions than Bismarck when Leach decided to retreat, with no hit in the vitals and no fuel shortage (except the one due to her limited range of course...).
Damage was "superficial" or at least "not serious" (for his Captain admission in the transmitted report to his superior + as Adm.Santarini evaluated (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=79249&hilit= ... ial#p79249): who are we to say the contrary without having any solid argument ?).
The RN RoF was set, most likely (and yes I am speculating), by the seastate and visibility, which at Denmark Straits was relatively calm with good visibility, versus a Force 8-6 gale encountered by Tovey.
Are you really suggesting that our knowledge of KGV's and Bismarck's output is the same? We have KGV's GAR and consequently we know a lot about KGV's output. We also know that Rodney achieved 90% output for the first 30 minutes. Based upon the summary of Rodney's GAR published in Warship 28, I can only identify the loss of one round during the first 9 minutes of the action. OTOH, we do not have Bismarck's GAR and consequently we know nothing about her output except the number of rounds fired and you're simply pulling numbers out of thin air when you state an output of 89% for Bismarck. There is no evidence, whatsoever, about a loss of output save for the fact that she fired 93 rounds, when we might have expected 96, so the best guess would be that Bismarck had ~97% output.
It doesn't matter why Type 284 didn't work except that it didn't work. Please don't state speculation as fact as we have no idea when it was switched on and the warm-up times and performance during warm-up would have been well known to the operators while her GAR stated other probable reasons.
What in my list of damages to PoW was incorrect?