More on KGV Class main armament problems

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: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by paul.mercer »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 10:32 am
Alecsandros wrote: "a better option would have been steadiyng at 20km from the enemy and pounding away with his 5 working heavy guns"
Hi Alec,
I fully agree on the tactic you suggest.

Re. the number of available guns what you say is correct in case we accept that the shell ring would have jammed even in case of a "smooth" turn to port to open range instead of as a result of the hard turn to disengage....

In case the smooth turn would not have caused the problem (generated by the heavy roll of the ship), PoW would have had 8 or 9 working guns (depending on the time needed to recover Y2) to engage Bismarck from a more convenient distance.


Bye, Alberto
Hi Alberto,
Much as I dislike disagreeing with you and Alecsandros as I consider your knowledge far greater than mine, I cannot help but to think that this would have been a very dangerous tactic for PoW. If she was capable of 'pounding away' with her remaining 5 heavy guns at 20,000M then surely Bismarck would be able to do the same with her 8 guns, plus PE with her 8 (if she could shoot that far) and while there has been debate about the accuracy of PoW's fire, there have been no questions about the accuracy of Bismarck's which was very good. There also seems to be some doubt as to how long it took Y turret to have its problems solved and would quite likely to have been made more difficult while the ship was under heavy fire.
I realise this is probably going to go back (as many other threads have done) to Capt Leach's decision to disengage, but with the reliability of his guns in question I think he had no choice but to act to in order to save his ship. Although I admit that I am an RN fan,I do recognize the excellence of the German ships and still hold the opinion that had PoW continued to fight, sooner or later she would have received a vital or even crippling hit which could have slowed her down so PE could eventually use her torpedoes, resulting in the loss of two RN capital ships and an enormous boost for Nazi propaganda. Whether or not Churchill ordered a Court Martial had been debated, but as he was(I believe) sometimes prone to making decisions in haste, it would not be surprising if he did and was 'warned off' by wiser council!
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:24 am
dunmunro wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 9:04 pm Lutjens reduced speed but never below about ~20 knots. Lutjens and BrinkMann's immediate concern was to find fuel for PE.
von Mullencheim describes speed reduction down to 16kts; other sources 12kts.

It is a simple arithmetical calculus to be done to check this fact: if Victorious was at 350nm away on May 24th 6:00*, to the S-E of Bismarck, steaming at 27kts (later 29kts), what was the required average delta speed between Victorious and Bismarck , so that, at around 23:00 (17 hours later), the distance between the 2 ships would be reduced to approx. 80nm (which was the distance from which the Swordfish bombers were historically launched) ?

* from here: https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chron ... orge_V.htm

'(At0601/24/5/41 in approximate position63-22N, 32-17W HOOD was sunk by theBISMARCK'

'At 0600 hours the Home Fleet was in approximate position 60N, 22W. This was about 350 NM south easterly of the position of HOOD's sinking.

At 0800hours the Home Fleet altered course to260¼ and later to 240¼.

At 1509hours, VICTORIOUS, GALATEA, AURORA, KENYA and HERMIONE were detached to steer the best course to get within 100 miles of the enemy and carry out an air strike on BISMARCK'
The Baron states that Bismarck did not slow below 22 knots prior to the first Swordfish attack and only after the first torpedo hit did Bismarck slow to 16 knots for a short period to attempt repairs on the bow. Suffolk and Norfolk never reported a speed of less than 22 knots prior to the torpedo hit.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Paul mercer wrote: "If she was capable of 'pounding away' with her remaining 5 heavy guns at 20,000M"
Hi Paul,
nobody can say whether PoW would have had 5 or 9 guns available, after a smooth turn, not the 160° one under hard rudder at full speed, that jammed Y turret.

"had PoW continued to fight, sooner or later she would have received a vital or even crippling hit which could have slowed her down so PE could eventually use her torpedoes"
You seem to forget that there were 2 British heavy cruisers present behind PoW. They could have engaged PG, protecting a crippled PoW.
It's extremely unlikey that PG (nor BS) could have been ordered to turn back and to finish PoW: Lutjens would have never taken further risks, as this would have been against his clear orders.


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: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by alecsandros »

dunmunro wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:23 am The Baron states that Bismarck did not slow below 22 knots prior to the first Swordfish attack and only after the first torpedo hit did Bismarck slow to 16 knots for a short period to attempt repairs on the bow. Suffolk and Norfolk never reported a speed of less than 22 knots prior to the torpedo hit.
Possibly my memory is playing tricks.

however, the positioning of Victorious at 6:00 is known, the positioning of Hood at 6:00 is known, and the launch position of Victorious at 23:00 is known. Course and speed of victorious is known... Course of Bismarck is (largely) known...
Therefore an average delta speed can be calculated...
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by alecsandros »

paul.mercer wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:57 am I realise this is probably going to go back (as many other threads have done) to Capt Leach's decision to disengage, but with the reliability of his guns in question I think he had no choice but to act to in order to save his ship. Although I admit that I am an RN fan,I do recognize the excellence of the German ships and still hold the opinion that had PoW continued to fight, sooner or later she would have received a vital or even crippling hit which could have slowed her down so PE could eventually use her torpedoes, resulting in the loss of two RN capital ships and an enormous boost for Nazi propaganda. Whether or not Churchill ordered a Court Martial had been debated, but as he was(I believe) sometimes prone to making decisions in haste, it would not be surprising if he did and was 'warned off' by wiser council!
There wasn't any real torpedo threat. Prince of Wales and Bismarck manovured hard , and range was quickly opened, at 6:09 it was already 19km.
Yes, I also think PRince of WAles would receive further damage from the Germans, but she would also produce more damage to Bismarck, IMHO (19-20km was the range of the first 14inch hit against Bismarck, and her main rangefinders were operational).
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Bill Jurens »

Alecsandros wrote: "a better option would have been steadying at 20km from the enemy and pounding away with his 5 working heavy guns"

This may be true provided it was tactically achievable, i.e. assuming Bismarck was willing to accept this situation, i.e. fighting at a constant range of 20000 (or so) meters. She could have maneuvered to change this. With no significant speed advantage over Bismarck, in practical terms the ability of Prince of Wales to select and maintain a specific range was limited.

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

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by alecsandros »

Bill Jurens wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:47 pm Alecsandros wrote: "a better option would have been steadying at 20km from the enemy and pounding away with his 5 working heavy guns"

This may be true provided it was tactically achievable, i.e. assuming Bismarck was willing to accept this situation, i.e. fighting at a constant range of 20000 (or so) meters. She could have maneuvered to change this. With no significant speed advantage over Bismarck, in practical terms the ability of Prince of Wales to select and maintain a specific range was limited.

Bill Jurens
It is entirely conceivable that Bismarck would manouvre, but this point of view - about a settling of PoW out at 20km - is a proposition for a mode of operations. If such a mode of operations would have been adopted, probably many debates about the disengagement would have been non-existent...

Does this to you as a reasonable assumption ?
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
"She could have maneuvered to change this. With no significant speed advantage over Bismarck, in practical terms the ability of Prince of Wales to select and maintain a specific range was limited"
Of course this is correct.
However, any course change to "follow" PoW to port (the only way to keep the short range) would have taken her rapidly under Norfolk effective fire.
In view of his orders, I don't see any chance Lutjens would have abandoned his "narrow free corridor" (220° course) to Atlantic.

Alecsandros wrote: "If such a mode of operations would have been adopted, probably many debates about the disengagement would have been non-existent... "
Hi Alec, I totally agree.


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)
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by northcape »

alecsandros wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:29 pm
. If such a mode of operations would have been adopted, probably many debates about the disengagement would have been non-existent...

Well, there are not many debates. There is only one, and in my view, it is hilarious, childish, and ridicolous beyond all imagination. It is the 21st century, and grown-up people in comforable armchairs discuss in front of computers what they would have made better 75 years ago, in a real-world situation they have never been subjected too and they don't know anything about. Making it even worse, they base their judgement on sporadic pieces of information they are often not able to correctly interpret, and fight on blood and death for years and years about highy irrelevant topics. I really think it is utterly pathetic, and this is still an understatement.
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Bill Jurens »

I often -- perhaps usually -- see the discussion as representing an exercise in historical technique, i.e. as revolving not so much around what the facts are, or might have been, but in the methodology surrounding the interpretation of historical documentation in general.

The methodology learned -- or not learned -- here can be applied to other historical situations as well. I'm fortunate to have as personal friends two emeritus professors of history at the University of Manitoba, who have -- with great patience -- been able to provide me valuable insights into proper historical technique, including demonstrating what can, and what can not, be reliably reconstructed from the past, and how historical records of various sorts might be qualified.

Their general experience and wisdom has been most useful in assessing records and other items pertaining to naval history in general, and -- in this case -- the Bismarck operation, as well.

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

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
northcape wrote: "there are not many debates. There is only one, and in my view, it is hilarious, childish, and ridicolous beyond all imagination....I really think it is utterly pathetic, and this is still an understatement."
I see this forum member is again insisting in his low provocations, but this is no surprise: just the mark of his personal frustration.


What is worse and really shameful is that the so called "moderator" of this forum leaves him free to write the above, even blessing his excesses by directly posting after him, without any reaction....
Is this his "moderation", when the debate was finally turning a bit more civilized ?
Why he prefers to post his "methodologic" statements, instead of finally doing his job, by closing the mouth of provokers ?



It's obviously not the debate that is hilarious, childish...ridicolous beyond all imagination....utterly pathetic here. And, surely, THIS is still an understatement.


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: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Bill Jurens »

Mr. Virtuani:

I have read Northcape's post again quite carefully and cannot personally see anything provocative in it at all. It does not take sides, merely characterizing the debate itself as 'childish' and 'rediculous'. No participant is mentioned by name, and in fact -- as mentioned earlier -- Northcape does not even seem to be suggesting that one side is more 'childish' than the other. My response, as in the case of Northcape, did not take sides, but merely pointed out that I found it useful to learn about historical technique from individuals who presumably know a fair bit about the subject.

Your reply, however, clearly represents a personal attack directed at specific individuals, in this case Northcape and myself. As mentioned many times previously, although it is legitimate to criticize conclusions and evidence, it is -- except in truly exceptional cases -- not acceptable to present arguments which suggest that any participant in the forum is, for whatever reason, acting in a malicious or dishonorable manner.

For that reason, and because previous warnings and actions seem to have gone unheeded, I have chosen to impose a one week ban on your posting to this forum. This action is independent of the individuals that you have chosen to attack, but only reflects the idea that it is basically unacceptable to personally attack any individual at all.

I hope you will return after the ban expires, as your commentary remains welcome, and perhaps even useful, so long as it is expressed in reasonably respectful tone.

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

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by paul.mercer »

alecsandros wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:18 am
paul.mercer wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:57 am I realise this is probably going to go back (as many other threads have done) to Capt Leach's decision to disengage, but with the reliability of his guns in question I think he had no choice but to act to in order to save his ship. Although I admit that I am an RN fan,I do recognize the excellence of the German ships and still hold the opinion that had PoW continued to fight, sooner or later she would have received a vital or even crippling hit which could have slowed her down so PE could eventually use her torpedoes, resulting in the loss of two RN capital ships and an enormous boost for Nazi propaganda. Whether or not Churchill ordered a Court Martial had been debated, but as he was(I believe) sometimes prone to making decisions in haste, it would not be surprising if he did and was 'warned off' by wiser council!
There wasn't any real torpedo threat. Prince of Wales and Bismarck manovured hard , and range was quickly opened, at 6:09 it was already 19km.
Yes, I also think PRince of WAles would receive further damage from the Germans, but she would also produce more damage to Bismarck, IMHO (19-20km was the range of the first 14inch hit against Bismarck, and her main rangefinders were operational).
Hi Alecsandros,
Many thanks as always for your reply, what I was considering in my post is the possibility of PoW taking one or more severe hits which could have slowed her down (I believe Scharnhorst was hit in or near the boiler room at North Cape which caused her to slow and enabling DoY to catch up),
so the point that I was trying to make is that as there was always a danger of more 'gun failures' on PoW which would allow Bismarck to pummel her, leading to the eventual use of torpedoes from PE. As for the two RN cruisers, while two would have been more than a match for PE on her own,but being older, it is doubtful if either would survive on a one to one and as they had already experienced the accuracy of Bismarck's gunfire were unlikely to try and get too close so therefore were unable to help PoW without being in considerable danger from one or more 15" hits which would almost certainly disable them and leave them open to being sunk by PE or Bismarck. As I posted before there are several instances in the past of Captains withdrawing from a battle in the face of overwhelming odds in order to save his ship and his crew, this was just another one.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by alecsandros »

@Paul Mercer

I also think more damage would have been felt on Prince of Wales. However, I don't think her machinery could have been affected directly from 20km. Royal Navy immunity zone expectations were for KGV class machinery immunity from 15.000 meters (and up), against 15inch shells (although speed reductions could be produced by shell hits in the forecastle or stearing area or funnel uptakes area).

On the other hand, more damage could have been felt on Bismarck as well. Another forecastle hit, or another below-the-waterline hit, could easily reduce speed even more, and/or produce greater fuel loss and range loss... Turret hits could knock out enemy guns, etc. And soft hits such as radar or rangefinders being hit would produce great problems for the enemy's targeting ability.

As for Norfolk/Suffolk, don't forget one of them was also carrying torpedoes , and , depending on the positioning between them and PRince of Wales, could support her with guns and torps.

---

In any case, as I said before, this possibility is a proposed modus operandi. If such an attempt was made - even if for 10 minutes or even less - I think the 'disengagement' discussion would have been avoided.

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

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by alecsandros »

Bill Jurens wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:12 pm Mr. Virtuani:

I have read Northcape's post again quite carefully and cannot personally see anything provocative in it at all. It does not take sides, merely characterizing the debate itself as 'childish' and 'rediculous'. No participant is mentioned by name, and in fact -- as mentioned earlier -- Northcape does not even seem to be suggesting that one side is more 'childish' than the other. My response, as in the case of Northcape, did not take sides, but merely pointed out that I found it useful to learn about historical technique from individuals who presumably know a fair bit about the subject.

Your reply, however, clearly represents a personal attack directed at specific individuals, in this case Northcape and myself. As mentioned many times previously, although it is legitimate to criticize conclusions and evidence, it is -- except in truly exceptional cases -- not acceptable to present arguments which suggest that any participant in the forum is, for whatever reason, acting in a malicious or dishonorable manner.

For that reason, and because previous warnings and actions seem to have gone unheeded, I have chosen to impose a one week ban on your posting to this forum. This action is independent of the individuals that you have chosen to attack, but only reflects the idea that it is basically unacceptable to personally attack any individual at all.

I hope you will return after the ban expires, as your commentary remains welcome, and perhaps even useful, so long as it is expressed in reasonably respectful tone.

Bill Jurens
With all due respect, but I don't think your decision is a fair one.
Alberto is working on his own, and surrounded by all this negativity he can't do much anyway. :silenced:
Post Reply