Page 36 of 38

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 3:11 pm
by alecsandros
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:

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 3:26 pm
by alecsandros
... 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.

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:53 pm
by Maciej
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.

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:03 pm
by alecsandros
"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
."

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:26 pm
by Maciej
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.

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:38 am
by alecsandros
... If you want to critique that information, You should start by researching the article in Warship International.

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:48 am
by alecsandros
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 ?

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:37 am
by Maciej
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:

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:41 am
by alecsandros
Maciej,
What interrogation report of whom ? Please provide a reference and a link.

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:41 am
by alecsandros
Maciej wrote:
alecsandros wrote:... If you want to critique that information, You should start by researching the article in Warship International.
Possibly.
:
CERTAINLY.

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:01 pm
by Maciej
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?

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:08 pm
by dunmunro
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

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:30 am
by Alberto Virtuani
thanks Duncan, I confirm both no centerline bulkheads and layout.

Bye, Alberto

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:04 am
by Maciej
Thank You. I don't know why I thought that centeline bulkhead existed. Memory could be false.

Re: Hood v Vittorio Veneto

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 5:34 am
by dove
the hood would win