More on KGV Class main armament problems

[dunmunro]

Hood's fire was accurate for range (and certainly for bearing) but she probably had problems determining target inclination (target course) and her initial estimates for speed were probably wrong. Additionally, Hood was probably firing two gun salvos which have an inherently low probability of hitting even with completely accurate target data. PE was probably salvo chasing as well, as her modern FC computers could allow for small changes of course with little effect on the accuracy of PE's own FC solutions.

Consider PoW's 3 hits on Bismarck; The bow hit would probably have been a close miss if her target was PE, ditto for the hit on the boat that damaged the aircraft catapult, because PE was a much smaller target than Bismarck, and only the amidships machinery hit was likely.

[Byron Angel]

Hood was probably firing two gun salvos which have an inherently low probability of hitting even with completely accurate target data.

Quite true!

B

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,
of course a ship with 10 guns (6 fore) has a salvo theoretically composed by more shots than a 8 guns ship...

Dunmunro wrote: "Hood was probably firing two gun salvos"

...only when PoW was firing 3 guns salvos. After 5:58, 4 (Hood) to 5 (PoW) guns salvos (arcs open for both ships).
Wasn't someone thinking that, due to PoW being the only ship in the world to loose output (becuse "green"), Hood could have had a salvo almost equivalent to PoW ? ...Possibly these people are finally convinced by now of their error: no ship (including Bismarck...) fired with 0% output loss.
In any case, due to a "larger" output loss the salvo of PoW were possibly more or less equivalent in terms of shots to Hood's ones.

"PE was probably salvo chasing "

Probably? A speculation, disproven by PG battlemap. Any evidence, please ? Bismarck could have done the same: another unproven speculation.

"The bow hit would probably have been a close miss...ditto for the hit on the boat that damaged the aircraft catapult"

Bismarck length = 251 meters. Prinz Eugen length = 212 meters.
PG was a closer target for Hood than Bismarck was for PoW.
The bow hit was more than 20 meters from the extreme bow, thus Prinz Eugen would have been hit as well as Bismarck was, just very close to the extreme bow (with less damage). The third hit, who knows ? Possibly PG would have been hit in the funnel, in the bridge or in the catapult (or Arado), as the shell was not very high over the deck and could have hit any part of the cruiser superstructure.
I don't think these "what if" speculations are of any value, tough.

"Hood's fire was accurate for range (and certainly for bearing) "

Not true: only one single salvo fell aside the ship (correct for bearing) and there were no proven straddles (download/file.php?id=3535). Please count the "accurate" salvos, instead of sentencing without any proof...




Still no comparison is possible between PoW good shooting and Hood very poor one (only the initial range estimation was slightly better for the battleruiser, but the salvos in the wake were wrong both for bearing and range due to the geometry of the battle), annoying as it can be for someone.
No hit, no straddle, no true "near miss", only one salvo falling in line and 50 metres short + a single splinter sent on board PG.
These are the facts based on the available info for Hood gunnery results.


Bye, Alberto

[HMSVF]

Hello everybody,
of course a ship with 10 guns (6 fore) has a salvo theoretically composed by more shots than a 8 guns ship...

Dunmunro wrote: "Hood was probably firing two gun salvos"

...only when PoW was firing 3 guns salvos. After 5:58, 4 (Hood) to 5 (PoW) guns salvos (arcs open for both ships).
Wasn't someone thinking that, due to PoW being the only ship in the world to loose output (becuse "green"), Hood could have had a salvo almost equivalent to PoW ? ...Possibly these people are finally convinced by now of their error: no ship (including Bismarck...) fired with 0% output loss.
In any case, due to a "larger" output loss the salvo of PoW were possibly more or less equivalent in terms of shots to Hood's ones.

"PE was probably salvo chasing "

Probably? A speculation, disproven by PG battlemap. Any evidence, please ? Bismarck could have done the same: another unproven speculation.

"The bow hit would probably have been a close miss...ditto for the hit on the boat that damaged the aircraft catapult"

Bismarck length = 251 meters. Prinz Eugen length = 212 meters.
PG was a closer target for Hood than Bismarck was for PoW.
The bow hit was more than 20 meters from the extreme bow, thus Prinz Eugen would have been hit as well as Bismarck was, just very close to the extreme bow (with less damage). The third hit, who knows ? Possibly PG would have been hit in the funnel, in the bridge or in the catapult (or Arado), as the shell was not very high over the deck and could have hit any part of the cruiser superstructure.
I don't think these "what if" speculations are of any value, tough.

"Hood's fire was accurate for range (and certainly for bearing) "

Not true: only one single salvo fell aside the ship (correct for bearing) and there were no proven straddles (download/file.php?id=3535). Please count the "accurate" salvos, instead of sentencing without any proof...




Still no comparison is possible between PoW good shooting and Hood very poor one (only the initial range estimation was slightly better for the battleruiser, but the salvos in the wake were wrong both for bearing and range due to the geometry of the battle), annoying as it can be for someone.
No hit, no straddle, no true "near miss", only one salvo falling in line and 50 metres short + a single splinter sent on board PG.
These are the facts based on the available info for Hood gunnery results.


Bye, Alberto

Aren't the only facts that HMS Hood hit nothing and 8 minutes later was laying in 3 pieces on the bottom of the Denmark Strait? Everything else is pretty much open to personal belief/theory and interpretation of witness testimony.




Best wishes


HMSVF

[wadinga]

Fellow Contributors,

There is no argument that given her limited output PoW's three, well, 2.5 hits was good

shooting

but an excellent gunnery performance is surely good shooting multiplied by high output.

This observation has been ignored again:

We know why Hood's shooting wasn't very good - she had an obsolete fire control system, obsolete in 1919 that is.

and also ignores the strong possibility that Hood's spotting top was hit and disabled (yes Santarini probably can't even count, unless he credits PG ).

All the best

wadinga

[dunmunro]

German accounts state (the same accounts used by A&A for other evidence) that PE was straddled. Her War Diary states that some early salvos were close enough to wash down her decks. This points to accurate gunnery from Hood and a strong probability that she was using radar ranging.

Target bearing is the easiest of all required measurements, since it only requires the director to keep the target centred in it's sights. Target inclination and target speed require estimation and is the least accurate required input to the FC computer, after optical ranging. The AFCT could derive target speed and course from bearing and range inputs whereas the Dreyer Mk V was much less capable in that regard. We know how poorly PoW's ability to range was and her initial salvos were much less accurate than Hood's.

Target size = Bismarck = 251 x 36 = 9036m2 and PE = 212 x 22 = 4664m2. These numbers overstate the actual target surface area but the proportions will remain much the same, and we can see that Bismarck is a much larger target. If Hood had engaged Bismarck she had a much higher probability of hitting. in the same vein 3 gun salvos (from PoW) are 50% larger than two gun salvos (Hood).
Perhaps Bill Jurens can offer an opinion on the above paragraph?

Salvo chasing: The captain will order small changes of course towards salvo splashes, but the changes are too frequent and too small to be plotted on a course plot. It would be incredible if Brinkman was not salvo chasing given the vulnerability of his ship.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

disregarding the usual emergency call to "indeterminateness at any cost" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&p=84074#p84068),

Wadinga wrote: "We know why Hood's shooting wasn't very good - she had an obsolete fire control system, obsolete in 1919 that is.
This observation has been ignored again:"

No it has not, I have acknowledged it quite some time ago (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=195#p84061), but in the "urgency" to post something, someone is not even reading what I write.... A pity...

Dunmunro wrote: "Her War Diary states that some early salvos were close enough to wash down her decks. "

I already asked this forum member to count the salvos as per PG KTB (download/file.php?id=3535): he did not. Only one single salvo is mentioned by the KTB to have "washed" the decks....
According to the official records, PG was never straddled. Jasper report is clear that he had asked to officers on board and got the description of the salvos falling close to PG. None was very close and none was a straddle.

Novel accounts (dramatically exaggerated of course) can say differently (as well as dramatically exaggerated British novel accounts speak about a "wall of water" or "forest of white trees" around PoW, exposed to the fire of both German ships, a wall and a forest that apparently McMullen never saw and did not affect his ability to observe his fire...). Accounts must be verified (and confirmed by geometry, cross bearings and in the case of Busch's enemy bearings and distance of Suffolk by Ellis himself, in addition).

"The captain will order small changes of course towards salvo splashes, but the changes are too frequent and too small to be plotted on a course plot."

So could have done Bismarck too, being under fire, but this is a pure speculation, that can be written in a novel, not in an historical reconstruction. The PG KTB does not mention "salvo chasing" at all and no such counter-measure was referred by Brinkmann to Schmundt after the operation, thus please let's stay to facts, not to suppositions.

"Target size = Bismarck = 251 x 36 = 9036m2 and PE = 212 x 22 = 4664m2."

Please, please, ships are not rectangles, there are voids inside these rectangles...
Anyway the "area" of a ship just gives a probability of being hit.
The actual location of the 3 hits does NOT allow in any way to say that the smaller ship could not have been hit as well as the bigger (except, possibly but not surely, for the 3rd hit, that could have hit or not PG). Sorry.


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Fellow Contributors,

In an attempt to use Hood's gunnery to exaggerate the effectiveness of PoW's, various inaccuracies have been perpetrated.

Busch:

“Prinz Eugen” steers through the water columns of the impacts of the “Hood’s” heavy turret guns, a deluge pours down on the forecastle, the turrets, and the stand. The Commander and runner leave the stand. The telescopes are temporarily covered with spray, and the Commander steps outside; he prefers to make his decisions with a clearer view.

Busch notes change in RoF

The heavy cruiser’s rapid salvoes-for-effect send tremors throughout the ship

and

.

The A.O. has been zeroed in for some time and now he fires as fast as what the reloading speed can deliver. In it’s now unusually rapid, in the actual battle, when every member of the crew gives his utmost.

Showing how inappropriate crude averaging of RoF is.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

"Showing how inappropriate crude averaging of RoF is"

No, just showing how novel dramatically exaggerated accounts cannot be trusted, without be checked, while GARs are more reliable.

Had PG fired "as fast as what the reloading speed can deliver", as per Busch, she would have ordered something like 500 shots in the first 12 minutes (all turrets bearing) but she ordered only 184 in 14 minutes....


Crude averaging values and statistics are inappropriate only when they are annoying, apparently, while the inaccuracies are perpetrated by the people unable to admit their errors like above (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=210#p84074) and lightly changing topic to carefully avoid a simple error admission.



Coming back to the topic we were discussing before this astute diversion, Hood apparently fired quite poorly, failing to identify Bismarck, never hitting, never straddling (based on German official report download/file.php?id=3535), shooting possibly less salvos than the rapid firing PoW (10 salvos to 14 according to Schmalenbach), with big problems keeping up (see "Hood out of action on PoW Salvo plot), never adjusting for line and getting fairly close to the target only once (based on the same German official report) with a 50 meters short salvo.
Only her initial range estimation was possibly better than PoW, but her gunnery during 8 minutes (with distances down to 15000 yards) was absolutely unimpressive compared to PoW, showing how a very well trained, but obsolete, ship is much less performing than a modern "green" one, at least when battle geometry is so complicated as it wads at DS.


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Fellow Contributors,

to carefully avoid a simple error admission.

Indeed Mr Virtuani paid lip service to the fact Hood's fire control system was obsolete, before continuing to bang on endlessly, as before, about how poor Hood's shooting was in his fruitless attempt to "Big Up" PoW's performance. He has acknowledged but then ignored the relevance of what he pretended to accept.

No hit, no straddle, no true "near miss", only one salvo falling in line and 50 metres short + a single splinter sent on board PG.
These are the facts based on the available info for Hood gunnery results.

Hood apparently fired quite poorly, failing to identify Bismarck, never hitting,

was absolutely unimpressive compared to PoW,

Now in his stolid refusal to admit how irrelevant a single value for rate of fire is for an extended period, he has applied maximum RoF (as previously in the case of Jutland) for the whole period and performed reductio ad absurdum again.

she would have ordered something like 500 shots in the first 12 minutes (all turrets bearing)

His enthusiasm for "official records" does not apparently acknowledge the signed opinions of Messrs Langley and Bevir Heads of Gunnery and Ordnance in the RN.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

"Indeed Mr Virtuani paid lip service to the fact Hood's fire control system was obsolete... "

thanks for (almost spontaneously...) finally admitting an error, let's move to other DS errors... waiting for an answer here (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8567&start=15#p84081)...
I suggest (not only to Mr.Wadinga) to think for a while, before posting... It will be a more productive way to discuss if based on facts and a huge saving of time.

"how irrelevant a single value for rate of fire is for an extended period"

Irrelevant for who doesn't want to accept what happened that day.
Extended ??? 9 minutes fire for PoW, 8 for Hood and most probably 14 for Bismarck are "extended periods"? Possibly we have a different perception of time....
How many RoF's would Mr.Wadinga like for such a short battle (that he is unable to reconstruct), when only 10 to 27 salvos were fired in total ?

"His enthusiasm for "official records" does not apparently acknowledge the signed opinion..."

...of Adm.Tovey in the official report (but here I understand that Tovey must be carefully challenged, as he was able to write point 19 after his own May 30 report...).



Whatever was the cause (and I agree about Hood fire control obsolescence), Hood fired very poorly when compared to PoW....


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Fellow Contributors,

Tovey's observation on PoW's output was that it would have been even worse but for the strenuous efforts etc.

Besides

the signed opinions of Messrs Langley and Bevir Heads of Gunnery and Ordnance in the RN.

Have more relevance and expertise than mere C-in-C Home Fleet.

Possibly we have a different perception of time

Agreed. I believe the single minute in which PoW fired three salvoes is fundamentally different to the minute where she only fired one, and again different to those where she fired two by the expedient of not waiting until all the guns which were supposed to fire were ready. Since the Baron and Busch and Schneider all believe that rapid salvoes are different to the non-rapid kind and require an order to initiate them I expect they would have thought so too.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,
waiting for a more cogent (and interesting...) answer here (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8567&start=15#p84087),

Wadinga wrote:"Tovey's observation on PoW's output was that it would have been even worse but for the strenuous efforts"

No, it was that "PoW started off well for such an inexperienced ship"...meaning that he had sent against Bismarck a ship that could have done worse, in his mind and that he was somehow surprised about the PoW performance...
Does the Ordnance Directors say PoW fired poorly ? No, they said the problems (minor, IMO) were due to the short time in commission. Please don't try to invent evidence, when having none.

"I believe the single minute in which PoW fired three salvoes is fundamentally different to the minute where she only fired one"

and this is simply a (single person, hopefully) wrong belief, as no RoF is significative over a minute interval (if not referred to a machine gun, of course)...

"Since the Baron and Busch and Schneider all believe that rapid salvoes are different to the non-rapid kind..."

...then Mr.Wadinga will be easily able to propose us a salvo chart for Bismarck and/or PG in which he can put together all the speculations (e.g. the turn to 270° at 5:55, BS fire ceased during turns, etc...): be careful however that there are photos and film to counter his fantasy.


Bye, Alberto

[Byron Angel]

I note with dismay that the snide rhetoric from Italy is once again re-appearing.

B

[Alberto Virtuani]

Without mentioning anti-nationalistic aspects (forbidden on this forum...), this guy got confused with the snide rhetoric from his friends, the RN fans....

He possibly has not noticed who started it first on this and on this other thread (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8567&start=15#p84081): for sure I have tried to answer to him in a very polite way (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=195#p84061), with no apparent result: a pity that the anger is blinding all of them.


Bye, Alberto


P.S. is "snide" a nice word ? I ask to the "moderator", as well as regarding the value of the above post to the current discussion else than a provocation (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&p=84090#p84089)....