Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3902
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 20, 2019 9:31 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 7:32 am
Hello everybody,
is someone trying to find a "revenge" for the bad error made (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=135#p83637) ? A childish behavior IMO.


Dunmunro wrote: "You have made a mistake here and appear to have misread the GAR...you have misread the GAR which itself contains a typo...on page 144, as you can see by reading paragraph 3 on page 140 ."
Not at all. You are just superficially reading and mentioning the documents. Please try to be more precise referencing the material you post.
Pag 140 and 141 of ADM 234-509) are not from the KGV GAR. You are reading the high level narrative of Capt.Patterson, not the gunnery report: we cannot know whether the narrative or the GAR is right in their interval subdivision when stating that 14 straddles were obtained. For sure in the GAR there is no "typo", in case just a repeated, confirmed "error" (see GAR snapshot).


KGV_GAR_intervals.jpg


In any case, even if the GAR is wrong and the narrative is right and you "prefer" to discard the GAR, distances varied from 20500 (first straddle) to 12000 yards ("last" straddle), a much shorter distance than PoW on May24 (21150 - 16450), therefore nothing really changes in the comparison (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=135#p83648) between KGV and PoW.

This discrepancy between GAR and narrative, just confirms that KGV report is extremely poorly written, as I always said, when you were trying to build a salvo plot based on such a report...

The excuse of "typos" is so often used by this forum member that it start to become his own "mantra", when inconvenient information is found in the official documents. Please open your eyes and face reality instead of looking for "typos" everywhere.


Byron Angel wrote: "My apologies. I must have been corresponding with another party using the same name"
Apologies accepted (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=150#p83658). Errors are just human. Persisting in errors is devilish.


Bye, Alberto
You are the one mistaken [commentary redacted WJJ]

Captain Patterson's narrative and the enclosures discussing various aspects of the gunnery action against Bismarck are part of section XIII as per page 139. You and Antonio have repeatedly referred to this as KGV's GAR in the past.

You misread the report and claimed that KGV's 14 straddles from 0853-0913 were from 16k to 12K yds, when this was not the case, and it can easily be confirmed via the track chart. Captain Patterson's narrative states that the 14 straddles were from 0854-0913 (page 141 paragraph 5), but here he is using the time of actual straddles, including the time of flight of the shells, whereas on page 144 paragraph 3, they are using the time of firing.

KGV's report assumes that the reader has some understanding of the material and for those who don't it might seem confusing.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon May 20, 2019 9:41 am

No, once again (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=135#p83637) you are posting inaccurate info and references, [commentary redacted WJJ]

Read Patterson's narrative of the action at pag 140,141 (that is not a gunnery report, see snapshot), then read the GAR (pag.144 and following) and you will see the difference, if you are willing to admit your repeated inaccuracies.
I have "misinterpreted" nothing. It is written in the GAR that the 14 straddles were obtained from 16000 to 12000 yards. It may be either that the GAR is wrong or Patterson is. [commentary redacted WJJ]

KGV_narrative.jpg
KGV_narrative.jpg (10.83 KiB) Viewed 487 times

Choose your "preferred" one (I "prefer" to use a GAR if I have to reconstruct the gunnnery aspects...) and then admit nothing changes because KGV obtained straddles from a much shorter distance even if you change 16000 with 20500 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=135#p83648).

Also, if your choice is for Patterson, then stop once forever using this approximate GAR to built your speculative salvo charts, because I have posted it (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=150#p83670) and there is no "typo". Just different statements than Patterson's narrative, that makes one of them simply wrong.


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: 3902
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 20, 2019 10:14 am

KGV was at 16K yds at ~0900 and ~12k yds at 0913. 13 minutes at 1.7 salvos/minute = ~21 salvos. So you are now trying to claim that KGV achieved 14 straddles from 21 salvos, in addition to further straddles from 0853 onward. Or are you trying to say that KGV fired 34 salvos from 0900 to 0913? KGV was shooting very well indeed if that was the case.

Just admit that the GAR states that KGV fired 34 salvos from 0853-0913 and ranges of 20.5k yds to 12k yds and achieved 14 straddles.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon May 20, 2019 11:35 am

So, now the RoF of 1.7 salvos/minute are referred to 13 minutes, not to 20 as per KGV GAR ? Speculation, but, if true, then also the straddles are referred to 13 minutes only, according to your "free interpretation", leaving a gap beytween 8:53 and 9:00....
Just admit that the Patterson's narrative and/or the KGV GAR are simply wrong, being very poorly written, unuseful to establish whatever, without "inventing" your "typos" to justify their inconsistencies....

...and also admit that nothing changes in the fact that KGV straddled from a shorter distance (20500-12000) than PoW (21150-16450), even in case you are determined to choose Patterson's narrative (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=135#p83648), discarding once forever the GAR, the 1.7 RoF reported in it and all the other info related to the interval from 16000 to 12000 yards...


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: 1033
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Byron Angel » Mon May 20, 2019 1:32 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 7:31 pm
[ 2 ] Santarini presents in his book "Bismarck and Hood" a time-line of the hits scored by Bismarck and Prinz Eugen upon Prince of Wales. If Prince of Wales' gunnery problems were indeed caused by radical own ship maneuvering, this did not seem to thwart the shooting of either Bismarck or Prinze Eugen.
That is because range was 14000-15000meters, and 380mm and 203mm guns had high muzzle velocity, and very flat trajectories. Therefore, the hitting space of the German batteries at such ranges was in the order of hundreds of meters (about 100m for Bismarck at 15000m IIRC, not sure about PE), which, coupled with the inherent quadrant of shell impacts coming from a salvo (each salvo had 4 shots), produced in practice a very large area of possible hits against a ship the size of Prince of Wales. In other words, even a salvo with a MPI significantly off-target still had chances of producing hits.

viewtopic.php?t=2631#p26678

Hi Alecs,
If my trigonometry skills have remained viable, a warship target of 30 ft height and 100 ft beam would indeed present a hitting zone of about 100 yards to a projectile with a 10 degree angle of fall. A four shot salvo by Bismarck at such a range likely featured a 200 yard spread (The Germans were very fond of tight salvo patterns, as far back as the WW1 era). It is also fair that any evasive weaving or salvo chasing by a target at this range would have been rather less effective than if the range (really time of flight) had been greater - say, in the region of 20,000+ yds.

Bismarck would still have been obliged to place its salvo MPI's within a zone from about 50 yds short to about 50 yds beyond the target in order to put the 50 pct zone of the salvo atop the target and have the best chance of scoring a hit - so say about 150 yds in toto (and maybe a little less for Prinz Eugen, but not that much by my guess).

I still consider that very good shooting against a target continuously under helm and making obscurant smoke.

My opinion, FWIW.

B

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3902
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 20, 2019 5:23 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 11:35 am
So, now the RoF of 1.7 salvos/minute are referred to 13 minutes, not to 20 as per KGV GAR ? Speculation, but, if true, then also the straddles are referred to 13 minutes only, according to your "free interpretation", leaving a gap beytween 8:53 and 9:00....
Just admit that the Patterson's narrative and/or the KGV GAR are simply wrong, being very poorly written, unuseful to establish whatever, without "inventing" your "typos" to justify their inconsistencies....

...and also admit that nothing changes in the fact that KGV straddled from a shorter distance (20500-12000) than PoW (21150-16450), even in case you are determined to choose Patterson's narrative (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=135#p83648), discarding once forever the GAR, the 1.7 RoF reported in it and all the other info related to the interval from 16000 to 12000 yards...


Bye, Alberto
You are the one claiming that the ranges for the straddles are from ~16K to 12K yds. I am merely demonstrating how that would change the nature of the salvos fired. There is no error in the KGV GAR, itself, and the only error being made is that you have chosen to read it incorrectly.

PoW's GAR = Gunnery Narrative of events plus the gunnery enclosures and is broadly the same as KGV's GAR from pages 139 onward. In KGV's GAR Captain Patterson has written the gunnery narrative which forms part of the GAR.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon May 20, 2019 5:47 pm

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "You are the one claiming that the ranges for the straddles are from ~16K to 12K yds"
No, it's not me. It's the KGV GAR to say that, mentioning the 14 straddles within the 16000-12000 yards phase, as well as the 1.7 salvos/minute RoF.... here the GAR (download/file.php?id=3523). I'm sorry if this fact annoys.
Mr.Dunmunro has decided to read it his own way....but he doesn't want to admit that, according to his view, then the KGV GAR is simply in error (not just a "typo" because it's repeated...) and cannot be trusted anymore.


"In KGV's GAR Captain Patterson has written the gunnery narrative which forms part of the GAR."
No, read what Patterson wrote and don't invent. It was the narrative of the action against Bismarck, not a Gunnery Report.... (download/file.php?id=3524). It's exactly the other way round: the GAR is an enclosure to Patterson's narrative. Don't oblige me to post also the proof of this evident thing...



Stop inventing your own version of things (including the "typos"): we are all able to read what is written in both documents I have posted above.

If you prefer to trust Patterson (that can be correct, but rubbishes the GAR...), nothing changes anyway in the conclusions about the comparison between PoW and KGV replacing 16000 with 20500 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=135#p83648): still distance at which KGV achieved her straddles is shorter...



Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon May 20, 2019 6:19 pm, edited 2 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)

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by alecsandros » Mon May 20, 2019 6:12 pm

Byron Angel wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 1:32 pm

Bismarck would still have been obliged to place its salvo MPI's within a zone from about 50 yds short to about 50 yds beyond the target in order to put the 50 pct zone of the salvo atop the target and have the best chance of scoring a hit - so say about 150 yds in toto (and maybe a little less for Prinz Eugen, but not that much by my guess).

I still consider that very good shooting against a target continuously under helm and making obscurant smoke.

My opinion, FWIW.

B
Hello Byron,
My take is that , with ranges down to 14km - 15km, time of flight of 380mm guns was 21-22seconds, while PoW was moving at ~25kts (28kts nominal, but gradually losing speed due to her trajectory) , or 46km/h, 13 meters/second. That means that, in the time of flight of the shells, the British ship was travelling some 280meters along her trajectory (13 x 21-22).

Most German maps that I've seen including British ships speeds , indicate the considered speed as 28kts (52km/h, 14 meters/second). That means their estimates of travelled movement in the time of flight of 380mm shots was 21-22s x 14m/s = 303meters to 308 meters.

Comparing 280meters (probably actually travelled) with 303meters (expected to be travelled), we observe a difference of only 23meters.

Such difference is easily within both the hitting space of german 380mm shots (100meters), as well as well within the quadrant salvo spread (150-180meters).

I suppose the actualy artillery problem was the target bearing, and it's change. However, with said speeds and times of flight involved, and quadrant patterns, I have troubles coming to grips with the 3 x 380mm hits in ~ 8-9 minutes of shooting against a target which wasn't effectively shooting back. The smoke screen was probably a deterrent to battery effectiveness.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3902
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 20, 2019 6:30 pm

[Commentary on Mr. Virtuani redacted WJJ.] Therefore while I will continue to contribute to the forum I will no longer respond to any of his posts.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by alecsandros » Mon May 20, 2019 7:12 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 5:23 pm
You are the one claiming that the ranges for the straddles are from ~16K to 12K yds. I am merely demonstrating how that would change the nature of the salvos fired. There is no error in the KGV GAR, itself, and the only error being made is that you have chosen to read it incorrectly.
"Straddling" when not supported by evidence is just a word.

As I wrote numerous times, German accounts do not support any "straddling" produced by British battleships before 8:57/8 (10-11 minutes after open fire), a fact stressed in a most known account of the final battle (that of Baron von Mullencheim).

The German straddling of Rodney, at 8:51/52 (depending on source) is supported by both German accounts, and British accounts... It is also supported by British maps of the final battle, indicating that both British battleships changed course beginning at 8:52, immediately after Rodney was straddled by a 4-gun salvo (and riddled with shell splinters). The modification of course produced a modification of target bearing , and rate of range change, and therefore a loss of fire control solution (if it existed) , for the 16inch and 14inch gun batteries.

The weather was appalling, 2-3meter waves, storm, Bismarck was manouvreing erratically, and obscured by shell splashes. Therefore, "straddles" and "hits" , at ~ 20km , at 8:53/54 appear to be pure fantasy.

I'd make a parallel with Scharnhorst's final battle: the Duke of York scored 2 or 3 hits against the German battlecruiser from distance 11-12km. When range increased to 15-16-18km, only sporadic hits were recorded (about 3 or 4 hits in one hour), due to the unfavorable geometry for hitting (end on target... just as Bismarck was for KGV/Rodney, only that she was approaching, not distancing), and appalling weather conditions.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon May 20, 2019 7:37 pm

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: [Commentary regarding Mr. Virtuani redacted WJJ]. Therefore while I will continue to contribute to the forum I will no longer respond to any of his posts."
[commentary redacted 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)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 619
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon May 20, 2019 8:11 pm

Participants may wish to make use of the Control Panel option to set 'Friends' and 'Foes', which allows one to block messages from a specified 'Foe' more-or-less entirely. If one wishes to register discontent or disagreement without becoming entangled, and still read contributions from a foe, one alternative is to simply post "RRD", i.e. 'Read -- Response Declined'.

Bill Jurens

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 619
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon May 20, 2019 8:20 pm

FWIW, I have records, from USN target practices, of quite a few first salvo straddles on targets at ranges well over 20,000 yards, even before WWII. So such an occurrence, while unusual, was by no means unknown, especially if the first salvo pattern was fairly large.

Bill Jurens

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by northcape » Tue May 21, 2019 12:13 am

dunmunro wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 6:30 pm
Therefore while I will continue to contribute to the forum I will no longer respond to any of his posts.
If everybody would follow this example it would solve the problem quickly. I can only encourage everybody to do the same in order to restore rationality, purpose, and common sense in the forum. There is nothing to be gained in providing a stage and audience for this kind of behavior and endless repetition of opinions.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Byron Angel » Tue May 21, 2019 3:53 am

northcape wrote:
Tue May 21, 2019 12:13 am
dunmunro wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 6:30 pm
Therefore while I will continue to contribute to the forum I will no longer respond to any of his posts.
If everybody would follow this example it would solve the problem quickly. I can only encourage everybody to do the same in order to restore rationality, purpose, and common sense in the forum. There is nothing to be gained in providing a stage and audience for this kind of behavior and endless repetition of opinions.

Hi northcape,
A dramatic step by any measure. But, given the current situation and the stakes involved (i.e., the long term heath and viability of this forum), it is worthy of serious consideration. I too am quite frustrated with the current situation.

B

Post Reply