Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Cag » Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:36 pm

Hi All,
Thanks very much for the explanation it is much appreciated, its what I thought but I'd rather check with you than assume as I don't think that would be fair to you and the time you've taken i producing your analysis (Excellent by the way!) It was just the guns per salvo I was a little bit confused over as obviously for the first 8 salvos PoW was only firing with either two or three guns per salvo.
Best wishes,
Cag.

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Cag » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:51 pm

Hi All,
Just a further thought, the PoW had a salvo per minute rate of 1,8959 reduced to 1,41 after losses and Bismarck 1,7457 reduced to 1,60 after losses, so 1,60 is higher than 1,41 correct? Then if we take this into the battle we can theoretically calculate that between salvos 1-4 the effective shells per minute for PoW was 4,23 (1,41x3 guns from fwd turrets) whilst Bismarck was 6.38 during the same period (1,60 x 4 guns all turrets)? Between salvos 5-8 PoW 4,23 and Bismarck 6,38? Between salvos 9-18 PoW was 7,05 (3 turrets bearing, 5 guns per salvo) and Bismarck between 9-13 was again 6,38? Obviously this is all only theoretical as the number of gun losses on both sides would have varied throughout the battle (Bismarck we are unsure but PoW we know) and it does not account for the three local control salvos fired by PoW. Can we still assume that 'overall' the German output was better than the British plus of course from salvo 15 PoW was facing the combined output of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.
Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by wadinga » Sat Feb 13, 2016 6:00 pm

Hello Alberto,

You say
fired after 6:03 with both fore and aft turrets firing
Oops my error I should have said 06:05 :oops:

but your 14 minutes includes 06:05 to 06:09 when even Antonio says Bismarck was only firing 4 shells during each minute. :angel:

You say


The comparison is based on the only proven numbers for BS

There are no proven numbers. We must believe expended shells and reported misfires, but nobody knows when those shells were fired. Antonio created an estimated timetable, and even used it to try calibrate the film :? , but his own analysis of the film timings for some salvoes shows his timetable is incorrect. We know from PoW's record that even she managed to vary the time interval when certain individual guns reloaded and fired. Her quickest being 35 seconds between 06:00:10 and 06:00:45 (salvoes 14 & 16)when the same group fired at those times. Antonio's estimated time for the Bismarck's 7th salvo is the basis of the "Leach Panics Theory". If he is wrong the Ziggurat tumbles..............

I would only get "annoyed" if I thought anybody else believed this Conspiracy Theory. :D

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Feb 13, 2016 6:44 pm

Hi Sean,
I don't think Antonio will confirm your theory about BS firing only after turrets after 6:05 He counted at least 4 salvos in photos.... ..

93 shells is NOT an estimate, it's in official docs.....

If you have a better theory on BS salvos fired, please present it. In the absence, I used 13 full salvos. Even with14 or 15, nothing will change in the table because output will drop down. Try yourself and you will see..... :D

Using PoW GAR methodology, this is the result of a "green" ship against your 'peak efficient' ship. :dance:

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)

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Steve Crandell » Sat Feb 13, 2016 7:03 pm

It is pretty obvious to me that there is no way anyone can identify when Bismarck fired which turrets at what time. That is why Antonio's plot of Bismarck's salvos is misleading for anyone who doesn't know that it's just a calculated average based on the number of shells fired. I think it would be more accurate to just say "Bismarck started firing here" and "Bismarck switched targets here" and so on.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by wadinga » Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:37 pm

Hi Steve,

Agree to that. :ok:

Even the switched targets point is unknown. After Hood blew up for sure but how soon? Nobody records that one 15" salvo blew up Hood and the very next hit PoW or how long after. The Fire control solution was easier as the two ships were close together, but that doesn't guarantee a hit, especially as PoW which was reported as turning to follow her leader first and then "turned hard towards us".

The Baron doesn't claim hits on two different ship with two successive salvoes, and the exultation on board would surely have been greater if this was recognised.

Cag, you are of course reading things correctly. Even on a slow, roughly 1:10 firing cycle PoW was more often firing 3 guns, sometimes 4 and never 5. This was obvious to Leach.

Alberto, I told you I believe the number of shells 93- no question
We must believe expended shells and reported misfires, but nobody knows when those shells were fired.


Demanding I provide an alternative timetable for Bismarck's salvoes is pointless, as it would be just as speculative as Antonio's. It could be an informed guess, as his is, but it could not be based on fact since there is no Bismarck GAR. This is the beef I have with Marco Santarini's book, which disappears into a bewildering world of complex statistical analysis based on (IMHO) insufficient base data.

Inadequate foundations for a huge, complex and unsafe construction.................now what does that remind me of :cool:

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3692
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:41 pm

Hello everybody,

only Prinz Eugen fired only the aft Group C+D at the end of the engagement, due to her course and the PoW relative position, since she could not bear the fwd Group A+B, ... reference KptLtnt Paulus Jasper gunnery report.

Bismarck could always fire both A+B and C+D turrets, so both fwd and aft groups all the way thru the battle as far as we can see from film and photos.

We do know Bismarck fired 93 shells on that engagement and YES, ... 104 guns ordered to fire was my estimate/evaluation, ... it could have been 108 or 112, ... or even more, ... we will never know for sure unfortunately.

Thanking the Baron we do know that Hood was targeted with 40 shells ( guns ordered to fire ) before the explosion, ... other shells may have fallen on her sinking wreck ... after Bismarck shifted fire to Prince of Wales.

We can count semi-salvoes of 4 guns ( 26 x 4 = 104 ) of either the fwd or aft group, ... or the full salvo ( broadside ) of 8 guns ( 13 x 8 = 104 ).

Capt Leach was describing a group of 4 shells landing on Hood when she exploded, ... so I assume 4 shells at each time being fired to the enemy, ... but he also stated it was the Bismarck 5th salvo, ... so I assume he was calculating 8 guns for each full salvo ( broadside ), ... in order to reach the total of 40 shells mentioned by the Baron.

I was asking help above on evaluating how Bismarck fired, and I think here following we can see the first 20 guns ordered to fire toward the Hood, so 5 semi-salvoes of 4 guns ... after we had surely other 5 semi-salvo on rapid fire, ... up to 40 as said.
BS_Salvoes_05.jpg
BS_Salvoes_05.jpg (84.32 KiB) Viewed 754 times
We can assume other 1 or 2 semi-salvoes ( 4 or 8 guns ) of Bismarck still being directed to Hood before Bismarck shifted fire to PoW.

At this point we are at 44 or 48 guns being ordered to fire on around 6 minutes of the battle out of 14 total minutes.

Most likely for other 2 minutes Bismarck making only a small correction fired other 4 semi-salvoes ( 16 guns ordered to fire ) to PoW, scoring 3 hits on her.

We are at this point at around 06.03 and 60 or 64 guns have been ordered to fire on the first 9 minutes battle time out of 14.

The Prinz Eugen torpedo ALARM reached Capt Lindemann, ... and Bismarck turned 50 degrees to starboard, ... around 30 seconds time, ... loosing the target PoW ...

Did Bismarck restart firing with same initial target acquisition methodology : Vollsalve + 4 hectometers Gabelgruppe ?
Is this what we are looking at on the PG film sequence ?

If this was the case as I think, ... since also Jasper did this from Prinz Eugen when he changed target reference his report, ... here the 5 semi-salvoes used to try to get the range again on PoW leaving the battlefield, so other 20 guns ordered to fire.
BS_Salvoes_05.jpg
BS_Salvoes_05.jpg (84.32 KiB) Viewed 754 times
At this point after other 2 minutes Bismarck turned again 50 degrees to port ( other 30 seconds ) loosing again the target having ordered to fire 80 or 84 guns and we are at 06.06 battle time.

On the last 2/3 minutes battle time before she ceased fire at 06.09 Bismarck ordered to fire other 20/24 guns on 5 or 6 semi-salvoes we can see on several existing photos of her taken from Prinz Eugen.

So a total of 104 guns ordered to fire on 14 minutes battle time, ... 93 shells really fired.

As usual, ... opinions are welcome ...

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Feb 13, 2016 9:20 pm

Hi all,
looking at Antonio reconstruction above (we do know that it is based on a careful analysis of photos and film, correlated with ship courses, not an "informed guess" or "speculation" :negative: ), I don't see ANY dramatic improvement of the Bismarck RoF nor ANY dramatic RoF reduction at any time during the battle, just a linear trend; therefore the results of the statistical analysis I have tried are still valid, in this scenario.
In case someone has a better theory (based at least on similar evidences) for Bismarck fire, he is welcome to present it. :wink:


Cag wrote: "an we still assume that 'overall' the German output was better "
Hi Mr. Cag,
based on the result, I would not say that.
Of course, if you take the interval when Y turrret was not bearing, you are right, but the RoF of PoW was fully in line with BS and the fact that Y turret was not bearing has nothing to do with the gunnery performance, being a consequence of the intercept geometry.

The only figures that can be compared (apples to apples) are 7,04 (PoW) and 6,38 (BS) effective shells per minute.

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Feb 13, 2016 10:56 pm, edited 3 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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3692
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Feb 13, 2016 10:35 pm

Hello everybody,

referencing my scheme above, made on 2008 thanking some German competent friends, ... here following Kpt Ltnt Paulus Jasper description of how he changed target from Hood to Prince of Wales repeating his initial procedure in order to get the new target ( PoW ) before starting the rapid fire once again.

In German :
Das 2. Schießen begann ich ebenfalls mit einer Vollsalve und anschließender 4 - Hektogruppe, mit der ich 0559 Uhr eingeschossen war und in das Wirkungsshießens eintragt. Die Entfernung war zu dieser Zeit etwa 160 - 170 hm. Im Laufe des Wirkungsschießens habe ich zweimal Treffer beobachtet, beide wieder Bb.-gleichzeitig von der Mittelartillerie des "Bismarck" beschossen, die es gut eindeckte.
In English :
As was the case earlier, I commenced second firing with a Full Salvo ( Vollsalve ) followed by a ranging group (straddle ladder ; 4 - Hektogruppe = 4 hectometers Gabelgruppe ) which zeroed me in as of 0459. Firing for effect ( Rapid Fire = Wirkungsschießens ) was then initiated. The distance at that time was 160-170 hectometers. During the completion of measuring fire effectiveness, I observed two well-placed strikes which again were fired simultaneously from the portside by the secondary artillery of the "Bismarck".
Does anybody sees any reason why the Bismarck / Schneider should not or cannot have done exactly the same procedure ?

Above on my scheme you simply have this procedure translated into a graphic format ... :wink:

Any help is welcome ...

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Steve Crandell » Sat Feb 13, 2016 11:35 pm

Antonio,

I think your logic is probably correct regarding how the fire was grouped. However, I think Bismarck stopped shooting during certain periods, because otherwise her likely rate of fire doesn't make sense. Of course when ranging they are going to wait for the fall of shot and probably always when shooting at PoW in the turns, since they can't be sure where she will be when the shells hit.

The other thing I notice is the nice lines of 4 shots implying there is zero pattern width in the fall of shot. I would suggest a diamond pattern for the 4 shells would make more sense, but I realize it's just a graphic device to show where the pattern likely fell so not terribly relevant.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:12 am

Steve Crandell wrote: "Of course when ranging they are going to wait for the fall of shot and probably always when shooting at PoW in the turns, "
Hi Steve, I do agree with you. I always suspected too that BS possibly retained her fire during her own two turns (30 secs each), while however being able to reload the whole battery, thus not affecting much the statistics on RoF..... the photo NH69731 is showing also the salvos of BS and PoW landing at 6:03:25, meaning BS fired around 6:03, just seconds before turning, then we have the PG film showing BS firing already when PG was not on the new course, therefore quite a few seconds before 6:04, so the fire interruption was very, very short.

I still have a doubt regarding the number of guns fired on BS (my ignorance.... :oops: ): perhaps here a German friend can clarify whether, based on German firing practices, BS was firing always all the guns in a turret or just half (as PoW did), especially during ranging. In the second case we would have solved the "mystery" of the very close salvos fired at 6:04 as per PG film (in a battle phase when "rapid fire" was apparently not needed/appropriate).


However we do have so many photos, correlated with timing due to the courses of BS and PG that I hope one day we will be able, working together, to establish an even more "solid" salvo plot for Bismarck than Antonio's one. :wink:

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:56 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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3692
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:26 am

Hello everybody,

@ Steve Crandell and Alberto,

I fully agree with your comments above.

In fact when Bismarck turned , ... and she did it 2 times, ... I am assuming she stopped firing and in fact after I wrote : firing restarted.

Now my doubts, ... adding up to your ones above ... are about Bismarck having restarted the complete " procedure " not only one time, ... after the first turn ... but 2 times ... also after the second 50 degree turn to go back on course 220 degrees at 06.06 more or less.

You are right Steve, ... my graphich scheme is a graphic device to show where the pattern likely fell so not terribly relevant.

I started on 2005 with a linear salvo approach table, ... on my first re-construction, ... after I realized this firing sequence methodology ... and now I am trying to go as deep and precise as possible.

So far I am satisfied of the whole result that is matching nicely with the course and relative positions showed on film and photos ... and the overall battle timing main events.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Herr Nilsson » Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:31 am

Your graphic scheme is wrong in some aspects by the way.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3692
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:39 am

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I was suspecting that Marc, ... and in fact I already asked you and Thorsten Wahl some help about it ... assuming you know better than me and the German friend that helped me on 2008 those details.

Any help from your side on making everything better and more precise is welcome.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Tirpitz sails on part of Rheinubung

Post by Cag » Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:50 pm

Hi All,
I am in a great deal of confusion. If we are really saying that 'in theory' and discounting all other factors, PoW should have had a higher RoF (1,8959 to 1,7857 18 salvos to 13) I agree, and that 'in theory' and discounting all other factors, PoW should have had more shells per min (10 guns firing 5 per salvo to 8 guns firing 4 per salvo), I agree. However we do not deal in theories but facts and the facts are that PoW had a 25% loss rate and Bismarck had a 10% loss rate (Salvo rate 1,60 to 1,41). I understand that we all have an opinion and I for my own part accept those fully and with all due respect, but it seems we are trying to prove an opinion that is already accepted with theoretical not factual logic? Is not 25% always in every universe larger than 10%, are 19 losses in 18 salvos always more significant than 11 in 13 salvos? I understand trying to promote an opinion but IMHO doing it this way is self defeating and illogical. It seems to be an uphill battle for anyone to argue a point by saying that IF everything had been perfect and PoW turrets were not wooded and IF she had been firing constant five gun salvos then PoW had an advantage because of a better number of guns firing in quicker salvos. If you require an answer to that, then it is yes! But we know that did not actually happen!
If we process other information in the same way and we are kind to the KG V and say her crew could begin being knitted together from December 3rd 1940- May 23rd 1941 that gives her 172 days. If we are kind to Bismarck and say that from arrival at Gotenhafen from the 29th September 1940-5th December 1940, and then, although able to train in Hamburg Harbour from 25th January- 5th March, we forget this period and do not count it, but take from the 18th March 1941-23rd May 1941 that gives us 134 days to knit a crew together. If we afford PoW the same kindness from the 28th March 1941-23rd May 1941 we have 56 days. I fully and totally agree with Alecsandros that Bismarck, KG V, and PoW had inexperienced and green crews, but the facts again show that PoW had the least amount of time to rectify this.
Maybe I have been very naive in my opinion of what the forum is about, which is my fault, I can only say that on the 24th May the German ships and their crews, although inexperienced and green, performed with honour, fought well and achieved success, the British fought honorably too but were defeated, those are the facts.
Best wishes,
Cag.

Post Reply