More on KGV Class main armament problems

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3437
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:36 pm

@Wadinga:

I will not loose my time to write again what your "moderator" cancelled because too "argumentative in tone" (?) while your "pearl of wisdom" (your words here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=225#p84093), the "snide rhetoric from Italy" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=210#p84089), etc, were considered kind and respectful by the same "moderator"...

I confirm I tend to state (in fair agreement with Santarini) that PoW RoF was very good, her output loss was not good but precision was good. This doen't mean I'm 100% in agreement with Santarini, while you are (without any supporting evidence...) against his conclusions.



However, an answer from you is well due by you here (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8567&start=15#p84087), before continuing this very interesting discussion on this thread. Please provide one.




@Dunmunro (or anyone who has understood his calculation):
I wrote: "Can someone explain me Mr.Dunmunro calculations (what are exactly the 2/3 and 1/3 adjustments ? What 's "reduced salvo size" ?) ?"
Please, provide an answer to a very simple question (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&p=84106#p84098)...


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:25 pm, edited 7 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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3437
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:59 pm

Hello everybody,

I see no critic is accepted by this "moderator" who consider them "inappropriate"... I just respectfully suggest him to read back again what others have posted before redacting only my posts...


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: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:35 pm

Participants remain more than welcome to re-submit deleted commentary with the more argumentative portions deleted. One might take it as read that the truth of the content is independent of the editorial comment that often has accompanied it.

The excision of the more aggressive portions, done prior to submission, will serve two purposes

1) to restrict the commentary to the discussion of facts, rather than the motivation, capability, or inferred intelligence of other participants

and

2) to make it easier to access and comment upon the 'pearls of wisdom' on both sides, most of which have heretofore been buried like chocolate chips in a cookie of pointless invective.

The material to be excised should, one hopes, in most cases be at least fairly self-evident. Excisions made prior to submission will alleviate the need for the moderator to act as some sort of 'comma king', line-editing and passing judgement on (and being judged upon) each phrase individually after the fact. Fair criticism in any debate is expected and often desirable, but it must always be phrased in a respectful tone.

It would, I agree, be much better if we could refrain from associating any individual with respect to their national origin.

On other issues, one member has had difficulty posting due to text being dropped. My experience has been that this is sometimes due to having the 'number lock' feature on the keyboard in the wrong position.

Bill Jurens

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:50 pm

Mr. Virtuani wrote:

"Hello everybody,
I see no critic is accepted by this "moderator" who consider them "inappropriate"... I just respectfully suggest him to read back again what others have posted before redacting only my posts...
Bye, Alberto"

This is fair commentary. The complete deletion of adjacent posts can sometimes leave some commentary 'hanging' and thus difficult to interpret, especially if no resubmission occurs. In the case of previous commentary, while I agree that some previous posts do contain material which is marginal and perhaps even 'over the line' with regard to tone, it would be difficult, time consuming, and probably not very productive to attempt to go back and re-edit some of these after the fact in an attempt to heal old wounds, fairly inflicted or not. No matter what decisions are made, if the argumentative tone in the forum continues, at least some participants will be left unsatisfied. I know of no clear solution to this.

Readers who feel a comment has been deleted unfairly should, I suggest, keep a backup in place, and resubmit with some of the more inflammatory material deleted. This is likely to go second-time through. Readers who feel a comment has been retained when it should have been deleted, can simply post and request a deletion. I'll do my best to repair the situation, either by explaining why the post is "OK", deleting at least the portion which was most offensive, or deleting the post entirely. Again, not everyone is likely to be satisfied.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3437
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:49 am

Bill Jurens wrote: "not everyone is likely to be satisfied."
No Mr.Jurens,
I'm sure all the members belonging to your side are very, very happy about the way you are deleting always and only my posts due to "excessively argumentative tone" while leaving their insults (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=225#p84093), insinuations, sneaky changes of topic and anti-nationalistic comments (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=210#p84089) in the forum. You are protecting them in all possible ways.

Unfortunately, Alecsandros was lucidly right when he said:.
"the only true contributors - Antonio and Alberto - are "locked" in a very convenient "cage" - the culprits for this being the Moderator and the Administrator." (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8523&p=82924&hilit= ... age#p82924)

What is surprising me is that, apparently, this line is blessed by the administrator Mr.Rico, who has allowed his forum to become your private courtyard and who has never answered to my complaints sent in private form about your "moderation". A pity for a forum that used to be free and now is ruled by the RN fans at any costs: I suggest to rename the forum to reflect this new line: possibly "K-RN Highest Traditions - A naval celebratory forum" would be more appropriate.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:38 am, edited 4 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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3437
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:10 am

Hello everybody,

I see that after some time still there is no answer to my request for clarification about a wrong mathematical calculation done by Mr.Dunmunro, from anybody.
Dunmunro wrote: "So if PoW was shooting at PE, we could multiply the 3 hits obtained against Bismarck by (1.56/1 = .64) to account for target area, which yields 1.92 hits and then by (2/3 = .67), to account for reduced salvo size, to give an adjusted 1.3 hits. "
I wrote: "Can someone explain me Mr.Dunmunro calculations (what are exactly the 2/3 and 1/3 adjustments ? What 's "reduced salvo size" ?) ? Sorry for my ignorance but I don't see how they can be correct mathematically"

We can therefore conclude that Mr.Dunmunro has just made a mistake calculating the probability of hits (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=225#p84097), had PoW fired at PG, instead of Hood, applying "adjustment" (2/3 in the above example) without any foundation and speaking about a ghostly "reduced salvo size" without any logic explanation. Apparently, he has forgotten that PoW hits were obtained in the 14 salvos fired before Hood demise and that PoW would have fired exactly 14 salvo to PG, while Bismarck was fired at by Hood, before the fatal hit....
An admission of a trivial error is very dignifying IMO, but this is a personal choice.

Of course the whole calculation is totally irrelevant, as the actual position of hits on BS is what matters determining (hypothetically) whether they would have hit PG as well.
As said, the first 2 hits would have actually hit anyway even a smaller ship, while the only debatable one is the third one.


The evident conclusion is that (for whatever reason) Hood fired very poorly compared to PoW, not recognizing Bismarck, never straddling just putting one salvo decently close to PG (50 metres short), washing her decks and sending a single splinter on board, while PoW was hiting and straddling.

I see this is quite annoying for the ones who would like to think that the "poor" battleship had been sent to battle still untrained....


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:35 am, 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)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3437
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:21 am

Hello everybody,

regarding "sneaky changes of topic" , here a clear example (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8567&start=15#p84085) of incorrect information provided without giving any reference (because no reference exists...) and without begging pardon to everybody for having invented things.
To be noticed that we were politely discussing Matapan intelligence information, providing new information to everybody, while he decided to jump in (with an evident provocation), linking an alleged Matapan cover-up to the very annoying, well proven by now, DS "cover-up".


Mr.Wadinga has incorrectly stated that Cernuschi copied from Bragadin re.Matapan. He never provided a reference. Of course this is false.
Mr.Wadinga has incorrectly stated that Cernuschi published his theory about the Zara 37mm fire against Barham on "Storia Militare". Again, a fake.


In case, he might try to provide an answer to my very simple questions here (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8567&start=15#p84087), before changing topic again...


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: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by dunmunro » Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:42 am

PoW's 3 hits on Bismarck translate to PE.

Hit on the bow = further forward and less damage.

Hit amidships = this shell struck the water short of the ship, dived below the armoured belt and detonated in the liquid layer of the SPS. Since PE has a narrower beam, this shell would have detonated in the water before striking PE.

Hit on the boat = this would have been a clean miss

Regarding salvo sizes, this was a rough estimate, but the total calculation indicates that the hit probability against PE would have been dramatically smaller than against Bismarck.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3437
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:08 am

Hello everybody,

Still no explanation re.the elusive "salvo size" concept (now become a "rough estimate": of what exactly? Nobody was able to explain me yet).

Thanks anyway to Mr.Dunmunro for (almost spontaneously...) implicitly admitting that his statistical calculations were mathematically wrong here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=225#p84097)... An explicit admission would have been more dignifying, tough.
According to a correct calculation based on traget area, out of 3 probable hits, around 2 would have hit PG as well. No "drama" at all...


Coming to actual hits:
1) agree: I already said the same here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=210#p84066), so thanks for being in agreement.
2) I see Mr.Dunmunro changed his opinion here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=210#p84062)...
I disagree with his revised conclusions: PG beam was around 14 meters less (7m per side) than Bismarck. ATS of BS was 5,8 meters wide at midship. Without having to pass through the ATS of BS, exploding against the torpedo bulkhead (ref. the Baron and this very site), piercing it, it would have detonated in contact with the external hull of PG, causing anyway flooding and damages as PG had no 45 mm Ww steel on her outer hull (inflicting less serious damages however, I agree)
3) Possibly but it's not sure. Has Mr.Dunmunro tried to superimpose the profiles to see exactly where this hit would have passed ?


Both statistically and based on actual hits we can agree therefore that at least 2 hits would have happened anyway, had PoW fired to PG.
Hood hit nothing, straddled never and (based on official reports) put only a single salvo short of 50 meters....
A very poor shooting indeed, when compared to PoW, as self-evident from a glance to results.


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)

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 802
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by paul.mercer » Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:38 am

wadinga wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:45 pm
Fellow Contributors,

It has been said:
The output problems (25% output loss) vs 15% of PG and (most likely 14% of Bismarck)
Accepting for a moment the guesstimate value for Bismarck and the principle of entropy within mechanical systems, if PoW achieved 25% failure with only 55 shells, Bismarck achieved approx. half that failure rate whilst firing nearly twice as many shells, and PG a similar rate to Bismarck whilst firing almost four times as many shells as the British ship, it is clear that PoW's system was seriously less reliable than either of her opponents.

Someone may consider PoW's problems minor minor, but in a handwritten memo, reproduced above, the First Sea Lord, Sir Dudley Pound clearly did not, and specifically questioned what was causing these problems and what was being done about them, from the two most senior officers concerned with RN gunnery. He received specific opinions that PoW had worse problems than KGV, from both men and both cited the short time since commissioning.

As such their comments completely justify Leach's actions in withdrawing from the action against two vessels suffering a fraction of the failures PoW was experiencing. Leach was aware of the failures occurring during the action, was aware of those which had preceded the action and as a Gunnery expert himself, knew they were unlikely to get better.

Gentlemen,
I hope and trust that this post will kill any further comments on the decision by Capt Leach to withdraw once and for all.

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

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by alecsandros » Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:06 am

paul.mercer wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:38 am
Gentlemen,
I hope and trust that this post will kill any further comments on the decision by Capt Leach to withdraw once and for all.
During the second battle of May 24th, Prince of Wales fired 41 shells of 48 ordered, for a firing efficiency of 85%.

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by pgollin » Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:11 am

.

A minor linguistic point.

Guns ordered to be fired would ONLY be those actually ready, not the number bearing. The firing officer would have gun ready lights for those guns "ready" (loaded and bearing). Guns that were awaiting completion of the firing cycle or which were casualties would NOT be "ordered to fire". Occasionally some guns ordered to fire wouldn't - almost always due to a failed igniter - also possibly more serious problems.

So of those 48, how many were actually "ordered to be fired", and how many were merely theoretically available to be fired (but never actually ready) ?

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3437
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:53 am

Hello everybody,
Paul Mercer wrote: "I hope and trust that this post will kill any further comments on the decision by Capt Leach to withdraw once and for all."
Hi Paul,
unfortunately my answer to the "post" has been deleted...

No, I'm afraid this will not, as the effective output of PoW in terms of shells delivered against the enemy per minute was better than Bismarck's one and the British ship was straddling and hitting the enemy (download/file.php?id=3463).

I respect your view that the decision was right, possibly an Inquiry / Court Martial would have decided in the same way, but we will never know, becuase the decision was not to inquiry anyone. I don't agree with your view, though.

IMO the decision was not justified by the actual output or by the actual guns problems (never mentioned by Leach himself in his report) but only by his doubts about the ship reliability and training (please read his report on ADM 509/234).
He wrote that just after Hood exploded "the situation changed" regarding his view of the chances to face Bismarck and that, due to the three points he had in mind since before the battle, he decided to withdraw. Two were his own fears about the ship and the crew reliability/readiness.

IMO it was a poor decision from a military viwepoint because, giving up his own mission, he left Bismarck (apparently undamaged, as per his knowledge at the time), to continue her mission, being potentially capable to inflict severe damages to British merchant (merchant convoys) and military (WS8B troop convoy) interests.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:39 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)

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

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by alecsandros » Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:09 pm

pgollin wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:11 am
.

A minor linguistic point.

Guns ordered to be fired would ONLY be those actually ready, not the number bearing. The firing officer would have gun ready lights for those guns "ready" (loaded and bearing). Guns that were awaiting completion of the firing cycle or which were casualties would NOT be "ordered to fire". Occasionally some guns ordered to fire wouldn't - almost always due to a failed igniter - also possibly more serious problems.

So of those 48, how many were actually "ordered to be fired", and how many were merely theoretically available to be fired (but never actually ready) ?

.
The count is the same as that done on the morning engagement (as the source document is the same)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1864
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: More on KGV Class main armament problems

Post by wadinga » Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:47 pm

Fellow Contributors,

It has been said:
as the effective output of PoW in terms of shells delivered against the enemy per minute was better than Bismarck's one
Once again Mr Virtuani is at odds with Admiral Santini who he keeps quoting on PoW's performance, whilst apparently having a different idea of PoW's output. Which minutes did PoW match Bismarck's maximum and average output of 8 shells per minute? I presume the Weasel-word "effective" is supposed to allow for shells that would/could/might have been successfully fired if the turret had been bearing.

Alecsandros, welcome back, I hope you are feeling better.

All the best

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

Post Reply