More on KGV Class main armament problems

[wadinga]

Fellow Contributors,

Here are two documents recently located at NA, Kew. Both are Crown Copyright. The documents are made available under the Open Government licence. These images were not made by the NA and are not subject to their image reproduction policy.

In the first Dudley Pound dated 17th Nov 1941 writes in his signature green ink:

Have you read the account of Bismarck action? I understand the KGVs gave a lot of trouble. What has been done about this please. Are they likely to have further trouble in a prolonged action.

In the second, Oliver Bevir Director of Naval Ordnance responded, clearly confirming "the short time she had been in commission" as the predominant factor in Pow's case. It will be unnecessary to remind me PoW had "commissioned" in January since what Bevir was referring to was the 14" quad turret armament which was only handed over to the RN in late April. His optimistic tone IMHO disguised the inherent difficulties which remained.





It seems unlikely to me The First Sea Lord was still "pretending" PoW had suffered from serious gun reliability problems in November 1941 as part of an imaginary conspiracy. His enquiry is clear and the response from the Director of Naval Ordnance is equally clear, PoW had problems in only 18 salvoes compared with the longer time it took KGV to develop major problems, because of "the short time she had been in commission".

This independently confirms the similar observation made in the document I supplied, signed by Gerald Langley.

Provided this discussion remains active we will move on to the specific detail of A V Godding's description of the failure in Y turret's ammunition supply system.

[Commentary redacted WJJ]

Enjoy!

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

[Commentary redacted. WJJ]



Of course, this doesn't mean that there were not serious reliability problems with the 14" turrets, just that PoW was at least ready for action as KGV was, by the time they were declared "ready" by their commanding officers, having had more time to prepare, adjust and train her turrets/crew compared to KGV (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=195#p83200).
The problems of PoW before the ring jam were "minor" (except the A1 gun) and were due to the fact PoW was firing at a quite fast Rate of Fire (that was even defined "excellent"...) on May 24, while KGV was firing quite slowly on May 27, allowing to avoid several "errors": finally, the two ships were delivering a comparable amount of shells per minute against the enemy, inconvenient as it can be.


Bye, Alberto

[Byron Angel]

Ignoring for the moment those guns which failed to fire for one reason or another, PoW was basically firing at a rate of one round per gun per minute. This cannot be deemed either a fast or excellent rate of fire: one round per gun per minute was what was expected by the RN, on average, for capital ship main batteries in WW1 and before.

The fact that so many salvoes featured missed shots, implies that PoW's performance on 24 May was in fact sub-par.

B

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

"PoW was basically firing at a rate of one round per gun per minute. This cannot be deemed either a fast or excellent rate of fire..."

A clear disagreement with Adm.Santarini (for whom the PoW RoF was "excellent")... : which examples of actual comparable battles do we have in which a faster RoF was achieved ?

On May 27, KGV fired (at her peak) only 1.7 salvos per minute (see her GAR), therefore 0.85 rpgpm vs 1 of PoW (average). KGV had less problems during the very first salvos because she was firing very slowly. Rodney did not do any better.
The failures of some guns caused the PoW output to be 75%, therefore, probably, at the end the two ships fired a comparable amount of shells per minute (despite KGV was so much more experienced...), confirming the very good job done by Leach to prepare his ship during an unusually long period of time (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=195#p83200) and also confirming also that "PoW stated off well for such an inexperienced ship", as per Tovey judgement.


I see these simple facts are very annoying, as they obviously raise doubts about Leach decision to disengage.


Bye, Alberto

[HMSVF]

Hello everybody,

"PoW was basically firing at a rate of one round per gun per minute. This cannot be deemed either a fast or excellent rate of fire..."

A clear disagreement with Adm.Santarini (for whom the PoW RoF was "excellent")... : which examples of actual comparable battles do we have in which a faster RoF was achieved ?

On May 27, KGV fired (at her peak) only 1.7 salvos per minute (see her GAR), therefore 0.85 rpgpm vs 1 of PoW (average). KGV had less problems during the very first salvos because she was firing very slowly. Rodney did not do any better.
The failures of some guns caused the PoW output to be 75%, therefore, probably, at the end the two ships fired a comparable amount of shells per minute (despite KGV was so much more experienced...), confirming the very good job done by Leach to prepare his ship during an unusually long period of time (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=195#p83200) and also confirming also that "PoW stated off well for such an inexperienced ship", as per Tovey judgement.


I see these simple facts are very annoying, as they obviously raise doubts about Leach decision to disengage.


Bye, Alberto

According to the Navweaps site the 14 inch guns were designed for 2 rounds a minute,Rodney 1.5 rounds a minute and the 15 inch guns 2 (a twin mounting based on years of experience from the 12 and 13.5 inch designs.

That the KGV’s couldn’t reach there designed output on construction would suggest that their rate of fire was wasn’t particularly brilliant when they couldn’t undertake what they were designed for.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

"According to the Navweaps site the 14 inch guns were designed for 2 rounds a minute...That the KGV’s couldn’t reach there designed output on construction would suggest that their rate of fire was wasn’t particularly brilliant..."

The same site (that I don't think is always right, as I think to recall someone reported a faster RoF than 2 rpgpm for the KGV 14") says that Bismarck should have been able to fire up to 3 rpgpm (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.php).... She fired instead at around the same RoF as PoW (deliverying "only" 93 shells in 14 minutes).


The fact is that the NavWeaps RoF is a theoretical RoF, we speak actual practical RoF in battle conditions: I'm not aware of much better RoF achieved when in real comparable battle.


Bye, Alberto

[pgollin]

Fellow Contributors,

Here are two documents recently located at NA, Kew. Both are Crown Copyright. The documents are made available under the Open Government licence. These images were not made by the NA and are not subject to their image reproduction policy. .......

.

As was demonstrated to you before (and I had thought you had understood) your claim is wrong and the posting of the images breaks the law (and your agreement when using the TNA).

Crown Copyright applies to the document, it does NOT matter who takes the image - READ the rules you signed up to.

IF you have a problem about this I can refer you to the relevant post.

.

[wadinga]

Fellow Contributors,

She fired instead at around the same RoF as PoW (deliverying "only" 93 shells in 14 minutes).

This combines is both an unwarranted assumption and an unproved assertion about RoF with actual factual information in the same sentence.

Both Langley and Bevir who are contemporary experts and were fully familiar with the 14" turrets state PoW's problems were due to "the short time she had been in commission". Neither say anything about PoW's rate of fire being excellent. They both, in internal documents, never intended for public release, attribute PoW's gunnery failures to her short time in commission.

Where Santarini, who like the rest of us has never even seen a 14" quad turret, let alone seen it fired, says anything about PoW's rate of fire it is qualified:

Mr Virtuani even photographically reproduced Santarini's copyright work on Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:05 pm (which is perhaps breaking the law, Mr Gollin to advise) including sentences where the gunnery expert qualifies his sloppy usage of "Rate of Fire" by admitting how few guns were able to function in each of PoW's salvoes. Rate of Fire implies output as well as a time interval. Specifically it means the time interval for the same gun firing. Based on our current table for PoW only on one salvo did any individual gun in PoW fire more than once in a minute.

Elsewhere Santarini praises only PoW's "firing accuracy" the ratio between shells fired and hits scored, strangely rating the glancing blow on a launches' bow as highly as that which terminated Bismarck's mission. Such is the stupidity of crude statistics. He mentions PoW's "excellent firing performance" on p107 whatever that means, and his table 20 on p109 is incomprehensibly flawed crediting Bismarck with only one hit on Hood (who actually knows) for 40 shells whilst giving PoW 3 in 55 over a different time period. If the table actually reflected Bismarck's hits on PoW as well it would be more like a realistic comparison.

He also pontificates on Leach's decision to temporarily withdraw without anywhere admitting that no-one in PoW knew whether they had hit Bismarck at all.

As was demonstrated to you before (and I had thought you had understood)

P 8 of 14 National Archives document "Copyright and Related Rights 2013 rev http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/docu ... rights.pdf

non-commercial research - this might include research for a non-commercial publication (one which will not make any money), such as some academic research. However, it will not include anything for which you or anyone else will receive a financial or equivalent return, and nor will it include research for a body (even a charity) which will use it to receive a return

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

disregarding the implicit desperate provocations of the above post, just to correct the most wrong statement among the several incorrect ones:

"Rate of Fire implies output as well as a time interval."

Please now post a credible definition of RoF, not self made "ad hoc" definitions. I prevent that I used the McMullen definition as per PoW GAR...

RoF is one thing (that does not imply output), output efficiency is another (I have patiently explained these concept several times, but apparently they were not yet assimilated by someone).
Combining actual RoF and output efficiency, we get the effective RoF. Here a comparison between Bismarck and Prince of Wales gunnery based on figures, not on more or less interested commentaries (download/file.php?id=3463)



I see Santarini's statistical analysis annoys enormously (more for his conclusions about the British refusal to accept facts, I guess: download/file.php?id=3420) : let's see if someone else will be able to publish one day a better analysis of the DS gunnery: for the time being he is the reference, sorry for the anger that this causes.



Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

I wrote: "I prevent that I used the McMullen definition as per PoW GAR..."

my very bad English... It should have been "I warn you that I have used McMullen's definition as per PoW GAR". Sorry.


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Fellow Contributors,

The Navweaps definitions are suitable:

ROF - Rate of Fire. Usually shown in terms of RPM - Rounds per Minute. ROF may be affected both positively and negatively by many different elements, too numerous to list here. ROF figures given on my data pages for manually-operated guns represent nominal values and should not be interpreted as being literally correct under all circumstances. ROF figures on my data pages for automatic weapons are usually the cyclic values, with practical values given where possible. It should be noted that an air-cooled automatic or semi-automatic gun can be fired continuously at its maximum cyclic rate for only a short period, otherwise its barrel will start to soften or melt. Automatic guns using a water jacket, especially those with a recirculation method including a radiator, may fire continuously at their maximum cyclic rate for much longer periods, as the cooling water helps to keep the barrel below the melting point.

rpgpm - Rounds per gun per minute. The rate of fire of each gun in a multiple gun mounting.

RPM - Rounds per Minute. On my data pages for multiple gun mountings, this is always listed in terms of rpgpm.

Despite patient but inaccurate explanations

RoF is one thing (that does not imply output), output efficiency is another

Rate of fire for an individual gun is one thing, for an entire vessel it is another.

Of course Rate of Fire implies output. Rounds per minute as above. McMullen could have fired individual guns every ten seconds, would expert statistical analysis conclude his Rate of Fire was 6 salvoes per minute?

Santarini's hugely flawed analysis IMHO is neatly summarised in Table 20 where he claims PoW averaged 2 salvoes per min whereas Bismarck achieved only 1, but on another line of the same table says the latter's was a full 8 guns every salvo whereas PoW's averaged only 3. He includes nearly 9 minutes of PoW firing and compares it with only 5 minutes of Bismarck firing, and leaves out the hits Bismarck scored on PoW altogether.

Overall his "new perspective" (chapter title) is no more worthwhile than Rob Winklareth's New Perspective (subtitle) and is certainly no "Reference".

We don't need such ill-informed opinions generated by a desire to find a "new perspective" simply to justify a new book, because we have Oliver Bevir's (Director of Naval Ordnance) signed statement from 1941. Which I provided.


"In the Prince of Wales the short time she had been in commission was the dominant factor"


All the best

wadinga

[Byron Angel]

Hello everybody,

"PoW was basically firing at a rate of one round per gun per minute. This cannot be deemed either a fast or excellent rate of fire..."

A clear disagreement with Adm.Santarini (for whom the PoW RoF was "excellent")... : which examples of actual comparable battles do we have in which a faster RoF was achieved ?

On May 27, KGV fired (at her peak) only 1.7 salvos per minute (see her GAR), therefore 0.85 rpgpm vs 1 of PoW (average). KGV had less problems during the very first salvos because she was firing very slowly. Rodney did not do any better.
The failures of some guns caused the PoW output to be 75%, therefore, probably, at the end the two ships fired a comparable amount of shells per minute (despite KGV was so much more experienced...), confirming the very good job done by Leach to prepare his ship during an unusually long period of time (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&start=195#p83200) and also confirming also that "PoW stated off well for such an inexperienced ship", as per Tovey judgement.

I see these simple facts are very annoying, as they obviously raise doubts about Leach decision to disengage.

Bye, Alberto

Please see the English definition of the word - "excellent".

One rpmpg was the average output expected by the RN for a battleship in WW1 - based upon extensive practical battle and BP experience. PoW's 24 May output fell well below that level, even allowing for wooded arcs; hence it is perfectly fair to judge her performance as sub-par. I cannot imagine upon what basis Admiral Santarini has concluded that PoW's rate of fire or output at Denmark Strait was "excellent". Such an opinion clearly conflicts with official RN performance assessment standards, even of a preceding era.

Perhaps Admiral Santarini could be invited to explain his logic.

B

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Q.E.D.
someone has still to digest the RoF definition as used in the PoW GAR and the difference between RoF and effective RoF (or to use McMullen words, between salvos per minute and effective salvos per minute)...

I suggest them to study a bit here (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm) as we were discussing RoF not effective RoF.

"Santarini's hugely flawed analysis"

Q.E.D. again, someone is very annoyed by Santarini conclusion about the British (apparently very stubborn after 78 years) unwillingness to recognize PoW merits at any cost (download/file.php?id=3420)...



We don't need a "Bevir" when Adm. Tovey himself (despite trying in any way to justify his Captain's decision) had to recognize that "PoW had started off well for such an inexperienced ship" and all RoF figures confirm Santarini judgement, both in comparison to KGV (2 salvos /min vs 1.7) and to Bismarck (download/file.php?id=3463).


Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

"...One rpmpg was the average output expected by the RN for a battleship in WW1...."

When a British WWII ship fired with a better RoF in anger ? Answer please, not generic statements.

If PoW RoF was poor on May 24, then KGV one was simply awful on May 27 and this is not the case....

"I cannot imagine upon what basis Admiral Santarini has concluded that PoW's rate of fire or output at Denmark Strait was "excellent""

As I was apparently unable to explain (KGV did worse on May 27, Bismarck did not better under the same conditions firing 93 shells in 14 minutes), please ask him, I'm sure he will be happy to explain, with his experience as gunnery officer and his studies.

Or, even better, try to find something published that is comparable to his analysis (especially worth of praise is his conclusion that annoys the ones who still (after 78 years...) try to deny PoW and McMullen merits download/file.php?id=3420 just to defend Leach's decision). Of course they would still prefer Kennedy's wonderfully written happy-ending novel to a fact-based analysis...


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

At Matapan 3 RN battleships engaged the RM cruisers at night:

Warspite engaged 3 successive targets and fired 7 broadsides in less than 5 minutes.
Valiant fired 7 broadsides at two successive targets.
Barham fired 6 broadsides at "" "".

Removing time to train her guns, Warspite fired 7 broadsides (equivalent to 14 salvos) in about 3 minutes.