Bismarck firing procedures at DS

[Herr Nilsson]

@alecsandros

I don't know. IIRC HMS Hood needed more than 10 minutes from 28 to 30 knots. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were at 28 knots at the start of the battle, not 27. Why should Bismarck take the lead at all? And why in such a complicated fuel- and time-consuming way?

@Alberto

Condensers are part of a more complex system. Super-cooling is at the expense of the degassing. The saturation temperature of the condensate has to be suitable for the pressure inside the condenser. There is an effect, but it's not that simple.

The Prinz Eugen film leads to the assumption that Bismarck is already very close. Actually she's not.

[alecsandros]

@alecsandros

I don't know. IIRC HMS Hood needed more than 10 minutes from 28 to 30 knots. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were at 28 knots at the start of the battle, not 27. Why should Bismarck take the lead at all? And why in such a complicated fuel- and time-consuming way?

... My impression is that Luetjens may have given the order to accelerate considerably earlier than 5:50 or 5:45. He probably wanted to avoid possible confrontation with enemy cruisers , and he would use his maximum speed. The "4 cruisers", of which 2 rapidly approaching, were detected on Prinz Eugen around 5:25 or so. This info was probably passed to Luetjens shortly.

During the battle, this order may have been kept, as it made enemy F.C. solution harder (harder to hit an accelerating ship than a steady speed ship) and it was required to protect, somehow, Prinz Eugen.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nilsson wrote: "The Prinz Eugen film leads to the assumption that Bismarck is already very close. Actually she's not."

Hi Marc,
1000 to 1500 meters max, having had in my hands a 8mm camera from 1950 myself (from my grandfather a gift for my 13 years....)

Alecsandros wrote: "My impression is that Luetjens may have given the order to accelerate considerably earlier than 5:50 or 5:45."

I agree. It makes sense.

Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Hi All,
I have had a look at the PoW GAR map to try and figure out where Bismarck was at points in the battle, unfortunately I used my old chart table stuff and pencil and paper so these figures could be wrong! (Eyesight, old age, the excuses are numerous!)

Salvo 6 hit for PoW was on 332 degrees and at 21,150yds, it was fired at 05.55.50 secs and took 30-35 secs to land? (05.56.20-25 secs). If we then draw a line denoting the 220 degree course and add in the degrees and distances of hitting salvos 9 and 13 the course of Bismarck is getting to be around 1000yds away from a 220 degree course. Would this suggest that Alecsandros was right and that Bismarck was moving to put off the aim of the PoW? (It's actually closer to the 212 degree course)

We can also find Hood as we know that thanks to Rowell's map she was on a bearing of 260 from PoW at 900 yds. By triangulation using the PoW GAR map Bismarck was 332 degrees and 21,150yds away from PoW and from Hood, Bismarck was 334 degrees and 21,000 yds away at 05.55.50 for example.

If we do this for PoW salvo 9 we can also see that if Prinz Eugen stuck to the 220 course then Bismarck would have been astern and well to the Prinz Eugen's port side? (Salvo 9 fired at 05.57.50 and lands around 28 secs later 05.58.18)

The 13th PoW salvo looks on the PoW GAR map to have been fired about 05.59.45 and lands 25 secs later at 06.00.10 therefore after the Hood exploded.

I do admit that Rowell stated that his map could be up to 2 minutes in error, (As Herr Nilsson pointed out the British timings could be out) and when the PoW GAR map is overlaid onto the Rowell map the times correspond so all these timings could be out, but it may show that Alecsandros is correct that for the time up to and including the explosion of Hood the Bismarck does not appear to be have been holding a steady 220 degree course, and looks as if Bismarck was to port of the Prinz Eugen.

Hopefully someone can check this properly while I snuggle down in my grandpa slippers, eat my mint humbugs and complain about how it's not like it used to be! (Strange for someone in their 40's)

Best wishes
Cag.

[Herr Nilsson]

@alecsandros

That means Bismarck already was at 30 knots when the battle began?

@Alberto

There are unpublished pictures and Bismarck is still far away.

[alecsandros]

@Cag
Many thanks for your appreciation, however it's just a theory...

@Herr Nilson
I don't know. It would depend on the time of the start of acceleration and how long would acceleration last (to 30kts).

What I understand so far is that true range between Bismarck and Prinz Eugen was apparently decreasing over the time of the battle (5:52-6:10). According to Prinz Eugen's battle map, the cruiser started the series of heavy turns somewhere in the 6:03-6:04 minute, so range reducing prior to that should apparently come from a speed differential... And there are interviews with survivors mentioning Bismarck approaching fast (big delta speed) during the battle with Hood...

BUT, as alway, eye-witness accounts are... from memory... as good or as bad as they can remember it (just like in the Baron's case)...

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

you wrote :

As I have explained before I am quite happy to believe the Baron and Schmalenbach.
I endorse their maps since they were there.
I believe with sufficient time one could insert the photographs and film to match them.

Can you please attach here the maps you are referring to with related book references ?

What about Ulrich Elfrath and Santarini maps ? Not reliable anymore ?

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All,
You're welcome Alecsandros, it is a very plausable theory as Bismarck must have been at roughly these points to have been straddled and hit and the evidence of these hits are corroborated.

I realise that this does not alter the photographic and film evidence but it seems a lot of the early battle imagery is missing if Bismarck was on the port side of Prinz Eugen and suggests a longer period of time for Bismarck to reach the starboard side of Prinz Eugen during the torpedo alarm course alterations (Although PoW GAR suggests that Bismarck began to alter course away from PoW at salvo 14).

There is mention that PoW's 11th and 12th salvo was "temporarily large line spread one or two shots fell well ahead as ship was listing heavily" is this an error in salvo counting as it would suggest this is where the Hood avoidance took place and would make the explosion on Hood earlier than 0600?

Best wishes
Cag.

[Cag]

Hi All,
Been trying to find origin of the salvo 11 & 12 notes that I have but cannot find it. So I would suggest I've either written this down wrong or have missread the origional source sorry! (So many notes written from visits to Kew!) When you make a mistake it's always best to own up!

The moving away of Bismarck at salvo 14 is in the PoW GAR so would this still fit with the time frame for Bismarck turning behind Prinz Eugen and ending up on the starboard side?

Best wishes,
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

this could have been a very interesting discussion if we did not have had it already for something like 10 years on several forums.

Lucky me, it should be all over now, ... but I understand your curiosity since neither you nor Alecsandros have been involved into it in the past, ... lucky you ...

In summary I give you some reasons why Bismarck was never on Prinz Eugen port side from the beginning of the engagement until she crossed Prinz Eugen wake at 06:08 more or less.

1) Photo NH 69722 showing her first and Prinz Eugen first salvo shows Bismarck on Prinz Eugen wake, on starboard side, at distance of around 2.300 meters.

2) Prinz Eugen Propaganda Kompanie Painter Julius Caesar Schmitz-Westerholt, a battle careful eyewitness on board Prinz Eugen, shows her in a paint I attached aside the salvo 10 here above, when she fired the fatal salvo to Hood and she is stil behind Prinz Eugen on her starboard side.

3) Brinkmann ordered both the port side 105 mm to fire at PoW as well as the Torpedo Officer to launch his port side torpedoes.

4) Prinz Eugen eyewitnesses on port side never saw Bismarck coming on that side on that timeframe.

I think it should be enough for the moment ... to explain you why Bismarck was not there, ... but always on the starboard side, ... until 06:08 as said.

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All,
Thanks Antonio I had no wish to bring back old and sounds like painfull discussions! If that is where accepted wisdom puts Bismarck I bow to the accepted wisdom. The Bismarck was astern and to starboard of Prinz Eugen as you say so is there another explanation to the apparent divergence from the 220 degree course?

My thoughts were to try and correspond the German and British points of battle to aid your reconstruction somehow, timings etc to corroborate the evidence already presented/known.

New people find new questions except when they have already been debated and debunked!

Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

somebody, Mr. Robert Winklareth, even reversed the Bismarck photos available to him, to try to fit that Bismarck position on Prinz Eugen port side, writing the biggest flop book in naval history, while completely disregarding what I have explained here above to you in summary, ... so poorly researched his work has been.
The conclusion he obtained by reversing the photos was that Bismarck was firimg to some bears on Greenland, ... instead that toward the enemy.
I think you will be surprised to know that some editors printed his books ... two times ...

There is so much poorly researched work printed about Bismarck and this battle you will not believe.

In this regard, now I am curious to see what Wadinga will post about the maps he is referencing above ... and how he will try to fit the available evidences on top of them.

New people as well as old knowledgeable persons, ... can provide a lot of value add in any moment on every argument, .. it all depends on the attitude you have while you are doing things.

If you do not want to accept evident facts because you have someone work you do not want to support at any cost ... that is exposing you to some problems ... sooner or later, ... and I do not accept this attitude approach in line of principle.

I have a great advantage, ... not to care about one side or the other, ... one ship or another.

Dunmunro above provided a clear example of an open minded person, ... he realized my shell flight time was not correct, ... and he suggested a modification ... and I already modified it, ... same I did based on Alecsandros and Marc ( Herr Nilsson ) confirmation about 2 salvos and not one being fired at the beginning of the PG film.

This is the attitude I would like to see here in ... positive and cooperative ... because I am not so arrogant to think that I do everything perfect always ... and know everything ... this is why I share my work and ask competent help ...

In case somebody strongly challenge my above work, telling me that what I showed is surely incorrect ... I simpy ask to show me why and provide me a different way to see the same work done differently based on their evaluations, and explain me why they think is more correct compared to my one.

But just like I accept my errors, ... I expect everybody to accept and admit his ones, ... after a fair comparison based on the available evidences.

I call this fairness ... a positive attitude ... the one you have and you show ...

Bye Antonio

[paulcadogan]

Been trying to find origin of the salvo 11 & 12 notes that I have but cannot find it. So I would suggest I've either written this down wrong or have missread the origional source sorry! (So many notes written from visits to Kew!) When you make a mistake it's always best to own up!

Hi Cag,

Yes, I think you have "merged" in your note-taking the "large line spread" noted in salvos 11 and 12 with the "ragged" salvos 17 and 18 which occurred later when the ship was turning hard away.

A large line spread appeared temporarily in salvoes 11 and 12 and one or two shots fell ahead during this time. Spreads for elevation are not known, but it is thought that salvoes 17 and 18 were ragged as the ship was under full wheel at the time; the ship was listing heavily and it is known that there was considerable movement on both elevation and training pointers.

(from PoW GAR)

Paul

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

thanking Dunmunro analysis on PoW gunnery, ... this may help you now, ... and someone else to realize which PoW shells we are looking at on the PG film landing close to Bismarck and on photo Nh 69731 :

PoW salvos analysis 011.jpg (37.18 KiB) Viewed 1227 times

PoW_salvo_plot_03.jpg (68.62 KiB) Viewed 1227 times

PoW_rangeplot_04.jpg (51.45 KiB) Viewed 1227 times

Bye Antonio

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

which one you support Sean ?

1971_Schmalenbach_Warship_Profile_06_PrinzEugen_page141.jpg (33.11 KiB) Viewed 1210 times

1972_Schmalenbach_Warship_Profile_18_Bismarck_page143.jpg (20.01 KiB) Viewed 1210 times

1990_Rechberg_based_on_Schmalenbach_PG_1971.jpg (32.97 KiB) Viewed 1210 times

... continue ...