KGv class with different guns

[Herr Nilsson]

Hi Duncan,
What is your proposed trajectory for a shell to enter the magazines ? Maybe you can draw a rough line in mspaint over that picture you've linked.
Because I do not see such a trajectory as likely at all.

Oops, I meant a plunging shell, through the deck, not a diving shell as in an UW hit. Although, if one remembers the diving hit on Bismarck that flooded the generator and boiler room, it might be possible for a similar hit to threaten the magazines.

But was it a plunging shell that disabled Anton on SH? And how does it help to understand what happend on BS on May 27th? Not very much, I think. SH's Bruno was operational again after pumping the water out of the magazine. It's not even clear what happend to Anton's magazine. One accounts state it was on fire and/or exploded, lifting Anton. But IIRC, there was the order to move ammunition from Anton's magazines to Caesar.

Back to BS. I can't find any deck penetration near Anton and Bruno, which could damage both turrets at the same time.

[lwd]

... But was it a plunging shell that disabled Anton on SH? And how does it help to understand what happend on BS on May 27th? Not very much, I think. SH's Bruno was operational again after pumping the water out of the magazine. ....

My question was whether a hit near or on Bruno could have cause Anton on Bismarck to be flooded just like the hit on Anton caused Bruno to be flooded on Scharnhorst. If that was the case Anton could have been expected to be back on line at some point but Bismarck may have accumulated enough additional damage to prevent that happening. From my reading of the Scharnhorst event it sounds like the flooding of Bruno may have been precautionary it's not clear how serious the threat was although they obviously thought it was serious enough at the time. Does anyone have any documenation on German doctrine in this regard? Was flooding the magazine veiwed as a fairly standard practice when an adjacent turret had suffered a severe hit?

[Bgile]

Suppose B turret was penetrated, resulting in a fire in the turret. Fire/smoke penetrated to B turret magazine and/or shell room. The smoke spread to A turret magazine and asphixiated everyone. That would cause both turrets to be put out of action for a time.

[Thorsten Wahl]

Does anyone have any documenation on German doctrine in this regard? Was flooding the magazine veiwed as a fairly standard practice when an adjacent turret had suffered a severe hit?

Its a standard routine to flood magazines i hope my memory is correct there is a "Schiffsicherungsvorschrift" or something with a similar meaning, wich describes procedures of flooding ammunition chambers - not only of directly affected but also of potentially endangered. This came from a lesson of a hit on Blücher at doggerbank wich leads to a successively burnup of 35-40 propellants.

[Herr Nilsson]

Suppose B turret was penetrated, resulting in a fire in the turret. Fire/smoke penetrated to B turret magazine and/or shell room. The smoke spread to A turret magazine and asphixiated everyone. That would cause both turrets to be put out of action for a time.

To the best of my knowledge, no, because of the arrangements of the fans smoke can't spread from magazine to magazine.

Thorsten,

I can't find such a passage in the "Schiffssicherungsdienstanleitung". Are you sure?

[Thorsten Wahl]

I couldnt find the origin until now.

[lwd]

Does anyone have any documenation on German doctrine in this regard? Was flooding the magazine veiwed as a fairly standard practice when an adjacent turret had suffered a severe hit?

Its a standard routine to flood magazines i hope my memory is correct there is a "Schiffsicherungsvorschrift" or something with a similar meaning, wich describes procedures of flooding ammunition chambers - not only of directly affected but also of potentially endangered. This came from a lesson of a hit on Blücher at doggerbank wich leads to a successively burnup of 35-40 propellants.

So this could be the reason that Anton ceased fire at the same time as Bruno? The hit on Bruno triggered resulted in damage control flooding Anton's magazines and they simply weren't able to bring Anton back on line before cumulative damage prevented it. Or am I off base here?

[Thorsten Wahl]

possibly yes

[RF]

So this could be the reason that Anton ceased fire at the same time as Bruno? The hit on Bruno triggered resulted in damage control flooding Anton's magazines and they simply weren't able to bring Anton back on line before cumulative damage prevented it. Or am I off base here?

This can only ever be speculation, as there were no survivors from that section of the ship able to testify.

[lwd]

Certainly but by much the same token you can regard the various discussions of why Hood blew up as speculation. It is a rather intrigueing mystery. Most of those familiar with Bismarck don't see any way that a single hit could have taken out both A and B turrets and the evidence for a second hit from the same salvo is rather shaky then you compound it with the two hits having to land quite close (and no evidence on the films for the second hit). This seems a rather reasonable explanation. By no means certain though.

[RF]

Certainly but by much the same token you can regard the various discussions of why Hood blew up as speculation.

But not to the same degree - with Hood there is survivor testimony from Hood's main command position, plus a whole host of other observed evidence from a variety of sources. With Bismarck we have very little hard evidence and none from those who otherwise could have given it.