More on KGV Class main armament problems

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Bill Jurens » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:07 pm

@ Mr. Virtuani:

Thank you for the replies. I understand where you are coming from now.

Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3905
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by dunmunro » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:26 pm

Schmalenbach observed the battle from anti-aircraft battle station and this would have had wide field optics and better all round visibility as required for detecting and engaging aircraft. Schmalenbach notes the shell splashes as occurring around the time of Hood's 4th or 5th salvos (~ 0554) which, allowing for time of flight, meant they had to be fired from her first two, or at worst 3rd salvo.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:32 pm

Finally Mr.Dunmunro implicitly admits he was wrong again (with his "narrow field" optics taht now become "wide filed" optics....): a step forward.

Around 3rd or 4th salvo (the first 2 were already landed since a while) Hood was 100 meters from the bow, thus not yet centered for line, while PoW was at 2nd salvo. Very bad shooting. Sorry. And not ameliorating with the following salvos, as apparently only one was centered for line (also the ones in the wake were clearly not, due to the actual battle geometry, because the enemy was almost on the beam).


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:43 pm, edited 1 time 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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3905
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by dunmunro » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:39 pm

Jasper observed from the 8in director and used very high power optics and states that he saw nothing except his targets.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:45 pm

Thanks for repeating what I write, Mr.Dunmunro !
I wrote: "Jasper was looking through a narrow field instrument and saw nothing but reported 4 salvos falling close (no straddles, no near misses, see below his report). "
I said exactly the same, posts ago (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=180#p84045).

Would you mind reading before posting ? Thanks in advance

Bye,Alberto
Attachments
PG_British_splashes_Jasper.jpg
PG_British_splashes_Jasper.jpg (69.84 KiB) Viewed 442 times
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:48 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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3905
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by dunmunro » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:47 pm

PoW's 2nd salvo was ~1000 yds over.

Jasper states one salvo 100-150 metres forward and the 2nd 50 metres to port amidships with further salvos close astern, so that doesn't leave many that weren't accurate for range.
Last edited by dunmunro on Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:49 pm

Q.E.D.
he does mind reading before posting.... poor me!
"PoW's 2nd salvo was ~1000 yds over."
Hood last salvo was not yet centered for line, so what ? What is Mr.Dunmunro trying to say posting quickly like a machine gun and hitting no target ? Is it the British tradition to fire fast at all costs ?

"further salvos close astern"
How many close astern ? 2 ? 3? Thus 5 salvos with good range and wrong bearing. No straddle at all in 8 minutes fire while the "green" PoW was straddling and hitting (download/file.php?id=3535).


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: 3905
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by dunmunro » Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:12 pm

Mr Moderator. I have scrupulously posted in a completely neutral tone, but have had my posts quoted and mocked along with personal attacks.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:24 am

Fellow contributors,

It has been said:
PE's War Diary suggests that Hood had accurate range data from her first salvos, as they fell close to PE right from the start.
And right to the end, we know they did, because we have Langemann's annotated photographs and Busch's description of Hood's last salvo.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:33 am

Mr. Munro's comment is reasonable. I would again ask correspondents to refrain from unnecessary personal commentary regarding the intelligence and/or motivation of other participants. Provocative innuendo is easily avoided, and adds little or nothing to the force of one's arguments.

Bill Jurens.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:41 am

[Personal commentaries redacted. Mr. Virtuani is cautioned. WJJ]

Wadinga wrote (quoting Dunmunro): ""PE's War Diary suggests that Hood had accurate range data from her first salvos..." And right to the end, we know they did, because we have Langemann's annotated photographs and Busch's description of Hood's last salvo."
So accurate were the so called "Hood last salvos", according to the impossible reconstruction (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526&p=82881#p82878) that pretends to put Bismarck on course 270° before Hood demise, that the first splash is some 300 meters away (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fd/24/6f ... a4f0a3.jpg) and the second splash is much closer to Bismarck and far from PG at least by 600 meters (download/file.php?id=3251)... A very good shooting indeed, totally wrong for both range and bearing.
Btw, annotation is not from Lagemann, it's from an archivist, but I see Antonio in not trusted here... A pity for truth, a great opportunity for leaving fantasy free until his publication (due 2021, with all the original photos and their captions) will close the debate!



Forgetting the fantasies about the PG film and photos, Hood was never really able to adjut her fire (for reasons we will never know, unfortunately). She had big problems estimating the bearing of the enemy, that was never definitively found, found an approximate range (50 meters wrong anyway) in three or four salvos only, never straddled and never near missed, causing not even minor damages to PG.
The only result of 8 minutes fire was... to wash PG decks and to send a single splinter on board the cruiser... while at the same time, PoW was repeatedly straddling and hitting Bismarck, after having found the bearing at the very 2nd salvo and the range at 6th.
I don't think it's difficult to judge which British ship fired better at DS...


Bye, Alberto
Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:29 am, 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)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:28 am

Fellow Contributors,

It has been said
Btw, annotation is not from Lagemann, it's from an archivist,
The person who alleges this is unwilling to show this annotation why? The Bundesarchiv doesn't say that. Besides since Busch is believed, although he needs words put in his mouth about seeing Suffolk, why is his book and description not enough?

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

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:31 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "why is his book and description not enough?"
Simply because it is an account and must be verified (as per Suffolk distance, proven by geometry and Ellis too...), while there are at least 4 proven (by photographic or documentary evidences) facts (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526&p=82881#p82878) that make impossible Busch's description of the salvos as being from Hood.

Answer them if able to produce any explanation or please finally (and serenely) accept that the splashes are from PoW (as per most other "captions"...).


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: 1049
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Byron Angel » Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:50 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:41 am
Forgetting the fantasies about the PG film and photos, Hood was never really able to adjut her fire (for reasons we will never know, unfortunately). She had big problems estimating the bearing of the enemy, that was never definitively found, found an approximate range (50 meters wrong anyway) in three or four salvos only, never straddled and never near missed, causing not even minor damages to PG.
The only result of 8 minutes fire was... to wash PG decks and to send a single splinter on board the cruiser... while at the same time, PoW was repeatedly straddling and hitting Bismarck, after having found the bearing at the very 2nd salvo and the range at 6th.
I don't think it's difficult to judge which British ship fired better at DS...

> "... big problems estimating the bearing of the enemy, that was never definitively found ..."
This would be highly unusual. Target bearing is by far the easiest part of the gunnery problem to solve. Are we sure that the historical accounts are being reasonably weighed and interpreted?

> "... found an approximate range (50 meters wrong anyway) in three or four salvos only ..."
This would appear to have put Hood's 3rd/4th salvo far closer to the target than PoW's 4th salvo was in relation to Bismarck.

> "... never straddled and never near missed ..."
50 meters strikes me as rather firmly in the 'near miss' category.

> "... wash PG decks ..."
Washing down the decks of a target with shell splashes additionally suggests that some of Hood's shots were landing rather uncomfortably close.

> " PoW was repeatedly straddling and hitting Bismarck, after having found the bearing at the very 2nd salvo and the range at 6th."
Without unfairly deprecating PoW's shooting performance."
This seems to me rather florid and hyperbolic language. PoW was not "repeatedly" straddling and hitting her target. Nor did she keep the range after finding it on salvo six, as is implied above. McMullen's gunnery report is quite clear on the point that range, once found, was always lost again and had to be regained - which implies that no good and consistent range plot was ever established.


B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:19 pm

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "This would be highly unusual. Target bearing is by far the easiest part of the gunnery problem to solve. Are we sure that the historical accounts are being reasonably weighed and interpreted?"
I agree with this comment, and I don't have an answer, as we know almost nothing about Hood Gunnery problems during the battle (not even why she did not switch fire to Bismarck once at 5:53 Holland sent to order to PoW to fire at the second ship in the line...).

However, this is what we have from Jasper (download/file.php?id=3535) and surely no damage from "near miss" and no straddle was reported against PG.
If we trust Jasper report, the only possible explanation IMO is once again the complex geometry of the encounter: Germans on 220° and British on 300° (later 280°) means an angle of 60°-80° with a very high range closure rate, that makes bearing almost as difficult as range to be kept correct based on estimated enemy course/inclination (obviously initial range estimation is much more difficult anyway).
I tend to agree with Mr.Wadinga, who pointed to Hood obsolete firing controls, unable to cope with such a difficult, very short, engagement.

"Hood's 3rd/4th salvo far closer to the target than PoW's 4th salvo was in relation to Bismarck."
Probably (even if we don't know by how much exactly the 4th salvo of PoW was over the target), but even in this case, Hood range was wrong by 50 meters and line was wrong by 100 meters, while McMullen says that line was perfect from 2nd salvo on for PoW.
The initial large overestimation of distance made from PoW and the fact it was fixed with only 3 correction, points to a "superb" performance of McMullen, but I agree that the initial error was severe and we know where it was coming from.

"50 meters strikes me as rather firmly in the 'near miss' category...Washing down the decks of a target suggests that some of Hood's shots were landing rather uncomfortably close....."
We are speaking about the same single salvo (most probably the one that sent the single splinter on board too), the only one that was falling decently close (50 meters range error only).

"Near miss" is quite a vague concept of course...However a "near miss" of an exploding shell close enough to a ship usually cause some leakage.
E.g. see Suffolk, after receiving near misses from Bismarck during the evening action, as per Capt.Ellis account in his "vituperated" autobiography (chapter 19, pag.13 and 14), or even see Norfolk the evening before, with several splinters received out of 5 salvos, o/w 3 straddles, where we can speak of "near misses").

Suffolk_near_misses.jpg
Suffolk_near_misses.jpg (52.51 KiB) Viewed 349 times

I'm sure someone, being very unhappy with the "old sailor" Ellis' "memoirs", will have to find the drydock report to check...
No damage whatsoever was inflicted to PG by any Hood salvo, therefore for me even this one is not a "near miss"... but I guess it's a matter of wording and interpretation.


"PoW was not "repeatedly" straddling and hitting her target...which implies that no good and consistent range plot was ever established."
Again it depends on wording. 3 times out of 8 salvos (from 7th to 14th: after the ranging salvos and before the avoiding maneuvers) means repeatedly for me, but I will be happy to change "repeatedly" in "at least more than once").

Of course range had to be adjusted during the battle (as well as probably on Bismarck according to the Baron that reported Schneider "corrections" to the fire solution, apparently due to at least one salvo fell overor short...).

However McMullen said (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... letter.htm) that, after the initial difficulties, "once the range was down to about 20,000 yards the T. S. had a good Range Plot".
Thus, after the 6th salvo, your statement is not supported by evidences else that not all the salvos were perfectly centered for range and required some corrections.


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)

Post Reply