Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1645
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:54 am

Hi Maciej,
I agree on KGV class guns to be quite green and troubles to be expected. In any case Rodney, despite having to turn several times in front of Bismarck (thus blinding her all-fore turrets) was able to fire more, heavier shells, having 1 gun less, and being much closer to the enemy. I expect she was the Bismarck's "killer" more than KGV.


you wrote: "After all first ~30 minutes of firing gives no trouble on KGV. ( on PoW problems were from begin but she was quite new, and had no real exercise before action)......"

The only reason why KGV had problems "only" after 30 minutes on May 27 was that she turned sharply for the first time (180° to north at 9:18) and at that time the quadruple turret jammed.... In the same way, PoW turned 160° to disengage, after 9 minutes of quite fair shooting, and her quadruple turret jammed..... :think:
I don't really see any difference between the 2 ships due to training level and still I'm not convinced that the problems were ever 100% solved on the class.

We are going perhaps out of topic, but in case you are interested, there is a thread where we have already discussed the aspects of KGV shooting on May 27: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834 and another one, where we have analysed the PoW vs Bismarck firing on May 24: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6811&start=450 :wink:


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby alecsandros » Mon Jun 20, 2016 3:11 pm

In the book "Hunting the Bismarck" (2006), byMiroslaw Zbigniew Skwiot, attempts a table of hits obtained on May 27th.
If the description is accurate, then yes, most of the hits and damage were caused by HMS Rodney:
Attachments
damage p2.JPG
damage p2.JPG (69.7 KiB) Viewed 559 times
damage p3.PNG
damage p3.PNG (77.62 KiB) Viewed 559 times
damage p1.PNG
damage p1.PNG (84.12 KiB) Viewed 559 times

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby alecsandros » Mon Jun 20, 2016 3:26 pm

... That being said,
I woudl add that , normaly, KGV's artillery shoudl have been substantialy more accurate and more efficient then Rodney's artillery (10 guns versus 9, much newer Admiralty Fire Control Table, radar, etc). In reality, it wasn't, for several reasons: Rodney was leading the formation and fired first; the smoke from Rodney's funell and salvos interfered with KGV's own spotting (until around 9:02). Then, KGV's radar was damaged by shock caused by own guns firing . Then, it was discovered that KGV's spotters were ranging on Rodney's salvos... Rodney did not fire accurately at all, with her straddling Bismarck at salvo 18 (at probably 8:58). However, the lack of manouvreing capability of Bismarck, 7kts speed and loss of main command centers early in the battle made the job of transforming the German BB into a steaming pile of metal much easier then it was to be expected. Later on (9:20), the first serious turn performed by KGV robbed her of 4 main guns, which remained jammed. From that time onwards, KGV had fewer guns operational then Rodney (6, versus 9), hence the lower total output (339 vs 380 shots) and overall less hits on target.

Maciej
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Maciej » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:53 pm

That part of the book is 25+ years old. I have polish edition of Bismarck, by the same author, distributed at about 1990 ( had to check exact date ), and that appendix is quite the same – just translated.
And contradicts with primary sources. Hardly surprising when You know what data was available in Poland in 1990 ( or before ) when text was writed. The only surprise is that was not upgraded.
According to Rodney report ( primary source ) hits were obtained by second salvo at 7.49
According to interrogation first hits Bismarck received at about 8.50-8.51 ( 1 hour difference due to different time zone on both sides ). Germans believed first hits were done by Dorsetshire.

So both sides quite agree that first hits were ~10 minutes before 18’th Rodney salvo was even fired. What other data than interrogation and report are available?
Now, not in 1990 in Poland.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby alecsandros » Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:03 pm

"Postby Tiornu » 28 Dec 2004, 01:10
I'm glad you brought up the RN's preference for 12-16,000 yards. A key reason for this preference was that it would dictate a prolonged slugging match with little critical damage. Since the British anticipated having numerical superiority, they didn't like scenarios that allowed for rapid destruction--that would simply increase the chance they'd lose their numerical superiority. So the preferred range band was dictated in part by the fact that it was hard to sink ships at such short range, yet Tovey went in even closer than that. He should have known to increase the range after Bismarck was silenced.
There's a lot of contradictory information on the final fight. The following comes mostly from the article from Warship 2002-2003 in which John Brooks focuses on RN gunnery. Rodney opened fire at 0847 from maybe 22,000 yards off, probably with alternating 4- and 5-gun half salvoes. It was not until the 18th salvo at 0859 that the crew reported a straddle. Reports of hits in the third salvo come from a Norfolk report and seem incorrect--Rodney's crew hadn't even gotten the correct deflection on the target at that point. It was at 0859 or thereabouts that the hits landed that disabled Bismarck's forward turrets and fore control station.
The most probable reason for Rodney's poor shooting is the fact that her crew had had little or no practice for the preceeding year, and her crew had suffered ongoing scavenging to man other ships
."

Maciej
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Maciej » Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:26 pm

Rodney report. Nit Norfolk statek hits with Second salvo. So at last Rodney crew knew (or "knew" many things could be mistaken) that early hits were obtained.
Yes there are statement of hits with 18th salvo by Rodney but it was not first hit!
At last in Rodney report. So surely one primary source contradicts with statement of "crew dud not know"
What other confirmation?
Interrogation and Rodney report difference in 1-2 minutes in timing. 10 minutes before that 18th salvo. And we throw it away because?

Any wreck checking will only show damage not time of hit. Some hits could be added to specific salvo but not many. For sure that 10 minutes difference is not possible to be confirmed by any wreck analysis.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby alecsandros » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:38 am

... If you want to critique that information, You should start by researching the article in Warship International.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby alecsandros » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:48 am

Maciej wrote:Interrogation and Rodney report difference in 1-2 minutes in timing. .

What interrogation ?
the ever criticisable baron von Mullencheim wrote "they [KGV and Rodney] took an awfull lot of time finding the range". Does 3 minutes seem alot of time to you ?

Maciej
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Maciej » Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:37 am

alecsandros wrote:... If you want to critique that information, You should start by researching the article in Warship International.

Possibly.
But I have Rodney report. There is statement "hit obtaned in second or third salvo", time 7:49 or 5:50
I have information from survivors. First hits received in 8:50 - 8:51 ( they were sure that Dorsethshire was hitting BTW, and anouther BTW they were sure that hits on Bismarck on Denmark strait was from Hood ). 1 hour difference in time due to different time zone.

I did not see Norfolk repport, but seem that Norfolk reported hit with third Rodney salvo.

So we have 3 confirmation from three sources, and we throw it away.

[qutoe]What interrogation ?
the ever criticisable baron von Mullencheim wrote "they [KGV and Rodney] took an awfull lot of time finding the range".[/quote]
No that which stated tha Bismarck will kill botk Rodney and KGV ( interrogaters were sure about that ) if Dorsetshire will not knock out its forward fire control.
:negative:

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby alecsandros » Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:41 am

Maciej,
What interrogation report of whom ? Please provide a reference and a link.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby alecsandros » Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:41 am

Maciej wrote:
alecsandros wrote:... If you want to critique that information, You should start by researching the article in Warship International.

Possibly.
:

CERTAINLY.

Maciej
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Maciej » Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:01 pm

I don't want to start another thread.
I don't remember if Littorio lad centerline bulkhead through mahcinery spaces. Was it present or not?
So there were 2 or 4 turbine rooms and 4 or 8 boiler rooms?

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby dunmunro » Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:08 pm

Maciej wrote:I don't want to start another thread.
I don't remember if Littorio lad centerline bulkhead through mahcinery spaces. Was it present or not?
So there were 2 or 4 turbine rooms (ER) and 4 or 8 boiler rooms (BR)?


2 x ERs and 4 x BRs with no centreline bulkheads

Layout: ER-BR-BR-BR-BR-ER

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1645
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:30 am

thanks Duncan, I confirm both no centerline bulkheads and layout.

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

Maciej
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 8:17 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Postby Maciej » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:04 am

Thank You. I don't know why I thought that centeline bulkhead existed. Memory could be false.


Return to “Hypothetical Naval Scenarios”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest