PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:59 am

Hello everybody,

I think we should be back to gunnery figures, not discussing Leach behavior when retreating, that is clearly a subjective topic, where anybody is free to have his own personal opinion.

Wadinga wrote: "As far as I can see he nowhere mentions a rate of fire for Prince of Wales,"
very wrong statement:
Santarini_pag.50_PoW_Gunnery_Performance.jpg
Santarini_pag.50_PoW_Gunnery_Performance.jpg (30.08 KiB) Viewed 640 times
Santarini just did not calculate the average effective RoF (because McMullen had already done it for him). If any evidence can be provided that Bismarck varied her RoF significantly, welcome, if not (as apparently) please let's stop claiming unsupported theories and stick to facts.

Now please let's acknowledge the comparison between average figures of PoW and BS (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=300#p82599) or say why in disagreement !


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)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:40 am

Fellow Contributors,

It has been said:
Santarini just did not calculate the average effective RoF
he does not even bother to reproduce McMullen's, or calculate one for Bismarck in his detailed analysis, because as an experienced and competent statistician he knows it is irrelevant. He strangely contradicts his own observation in the same quoted sentence, "albeit with a rather low number of shots per salvo". If only one gun out of ten had been operational, and all the others failed. presumably he would still have rated it as "excellent". Or maybe something has been lost in translation?

This obsession with the Mean value would be as irrelevant as claiming one had not broken the speed limit in Milan town centre despite driving at over 100kph because the time spent at stop lights reduced one's average. :wink:
If any evidence can be provided that Bismarck varied her RoF significantly
There is equally no evidence she did, just the considered opinion of Rear Admiral Santarini.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:57 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "He strangely contradicts his own observation in the same quoted sentence, "albeit with a rather low number of shots per salvo"."
Apparently Mr.Wadinga, after having written a wrong statement ("As far as I can see he nowhere mentions a rate of fire for Prince of Wales") without admitting he has, does not get yet the difference between actual RoF, effective RoF and effective # of shells delivered / minute....

Adm.Santarini speaks about PoW actual RoF (very high ("two salvos per minute") and in line with Bismarck's, when assuming 108 ordered shots, any alternative is welcome from Mr.Wadinga) that has to be corrected to an "effective" RoF due to output loss, getting a worse figure than Bismarck but still close (1.4-1.5 vs 1.6-1.65). On the other hand, # of shells delivered / minute is favorable to PoW (7-7.4 vs 6.4-6.6) as PoW has 10 guns vs 8 for Bismarck. I hope it's clear now.




If the following figures/facts annoy who prefers to stick to the proven wrong "old story of the green ship with poor gunnery", I can't help in any way (but I still wait for any measurable and supported argument to counter any of the following):

1) PoW actual RoF was very slightly better (1.89 vs 1,85) than Bismarck (assuming 108 ordered shots for Bismarck, much better if less than 108).
2) PoW output loss was larger than Bismarck's (26% lost shots vs 14%) due to mechanical problems / human errors
3) PoW effective RoF (1,4-1,5) was slightly less than Bismarck's one (1,6-1,65) but still in line with it (due to larger output loss).
4) PoW effective # shells delivered / minute was clearly higher than Bismarck's (7-7,4 vs 6,4-6,6).
5) PoW found her target before Bismarck, hitting the enemy less minutes (3) after having opened fire than Bismarck (3.5-4)
6) PoW hit the enemy form a much longer distance (from around 4000 yards more)
7) PoW was initially heavily handicapped by having only the fore turrets bearing for the first 8 salvos, and despite that, she hit first.
8) PoW hit only 3 times vs the 5 probable hits achieved by Bismarck, therefore her hit rate was worse than Bismarck's
9) In addition Bismarck had to switch target (this had probably not much impact, but it has to be kept into account). PoW had no such a problem.
10) No ship was able to hit enemy when maneuvering in emergency (PoW turned however 20° to port without affecting much the gunnery).
11) The 3 hits of PoW inflicted more serious damages to BS than vice-versa (while BS was devastating against Hood).

All the above, except 1), 2), 3) and 4) depend also on luck (and as the moderator has wisely said, the sample is too short to get any definitive conclusion). 1), 2), 3) and 4) however depend only on own ship's gunnery efficiency that for PoW was good despite the failure.


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)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Wed Mar 27, 2019 12:44 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Santarini does not mention a rate of fire for PoW, only his surprising assessment, "excellent" (?) before pointing out how few guns were actually available to be fired in each salvo, at the rate adopted.
On the other hand, # of shells delivered / minute is favorable to PoW (7-7.4 vs 6.4-6.6) as PoW has 10 guns vs 8 for Bismarck. I hope it's clear now
.

This does not appear in the book, is based on unproven assumptions and the only thing "clear" is its irrelevance. Santarini says Bismarck consistently fired 8 shells per minute for most of the engagement, (on pages 76 and 77) except for the last three minutes when she hardly fired any shots at all. According to this Excel sheet posted by Mr Virtuani, for PoW

www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 4&start=45

even with all her turrets bearing, this consistently high output was only exceeded once by PoW, in "mad" minute 06:00, with 9 shells, and otherwise was always less than Bismarck's output, dropping as low as 50% of her opponent's in minute 57, even though she had 9 "vaguely operational" guns against 8.

Now we have a tiresome repeated posting of a listing of 11 points to replace the Tedious Table and which takes up even more space.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:35 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Santarini does not mention a rate of fire for PoW"
Another very wrong statement....
I wonder whether Mr.Wadinga has read Santarini statement (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=315#p82611) or whether Adm.Santarini English language usage is incorrect....

What does it mean in English: "the battleship's rate of fire....was excellent: two salvos per minute" ? Isn't this a "mention" of the RoF ?
I begin to doubt that this forum member has clear in mind what is "rate of fire".
I have further explained that this is the actual RoF and NOT the "effective" one (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=315#p82614). Please read...


Wadinga wrote: "Now we have a tiresome repeated posting of a listing of 11 points "
Yes, and we will have this list until supported arguments are provided against any of these proven points (or until they are acknowledged). Please counter them, don't just talk around without providing different figures. Good luck.
Btw, the only "tiresome" thing here is to have to continuously counter all the wrong statements lightly posted by forum members not reading before writing....


Wadinga wrote: "except for the last three minutes when she hardly fired any shots at all"
An additional unsupported statement, a speculation based on...nothing.
Inconveniently for Mr.Wadinga, we have PG film and photos showing at least 10 salvos fired after 6:03, photos showing at least 4 salvos after 6:07 and 2 salvos in the last minute action... Please go here to discuss, if really interested (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=315#p82611).


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)

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:27 pm

.

ALWAYS ignoring the first two salvos (ones that were fired from pre-loaded and ready guns), then an excellent continuous rate of fire would be near to 4 salvos per minute, or 2 broadsides per minute. 2 Salvos per minute is very slow.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:30 pm

Hello everybody,
pgollin wrote: "2 Salvos per minute is very slow"
....as it is for Bismarck, that should have theoretically achieved almost 3 broadsides per minute and practically 2....

Comparison is between two ships in action, with complex battle geometry, not their designed gun reload time (never achieved in a duel)...
2 salvos per minute in a real battle was considered excellent by a gunnery expert and flag officer (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82618#p82611)...


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)

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by northcape » Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:54 pm

BuckBradley wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:51 am
Bill Jurens wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:46 pm
My only comment would be [...]

Bill Jurens
The voice of reason weighs in.....
The voice of reason (100% agreement) has fallen to the same trap as most of us here before: Entering a discussion with flat-earth scientists (see my definition below). All of Mr. Jurens' points are 100% true, and at the same time, have been raised many times before. We are witnessing now the x-th round of opinions disguised as factual matters.
A flat-earth scientist is not guided by sincere interest on the topic, which in this case is history. A flat earth-scientist is driven by an ideological agenda, and creates and tweaks evidence to support this agenda. If you are not a flat-earth scientist yourself, there is no point in discussing with a flat-earth scientist as there is no common ground to start from or go to (agenda and opinions vs. sincere interest in factual matters and voices of reason).
I repeat my suggestion, to simply stop the discussion with flat-earth scientists. Everybody is entitled to his/her opinions, and after some time there is simply no point in arguing on opinions. If person A feels that somebody 78 years ago should have been brought to a court martial, then this feeling is completely fine. If person A produces facts, and persons B and C point these produced facts out it is also documented well. And I think this procedure has been repeated enough on that topic.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:18 pm

Hello everybody,

I repeat my request to simply stop insulting.... Let's speak facts and figures about PoW gunnery (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=315#p82614) or let's stop any sterile discussion here, closing the thread.

I think both Mr.Jurens' judgement (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=300#p82603) and my answer to him (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=300#p82604), being personal opinions, are deserving a bit of respect.

I find the above post (duly reported offline, as per the webmaster's request) from "northcape" intolerably insulting (+ with no value add): just pure provocation, dictated (but not excused) by not having any argument to oppose to facts and figures.


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)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:14 pm

I have read Northcape's comment carefully, and carefully considered Mr.Virtuani's reply. Overall, I don't feel that the commentary is provocative enough to justify deletion or redaction at this point insofar as the term 'flat-earth scientists' (and variants) does not seem to be directed specifically at individuals, but merely describes a category of individuals -- who can fall on either side of a case -- who are somewhat reluctant to compromise. I think it's fair to say that 'flat-earthers', via Northcape's description, probably exist on both sides of the issue...

I am reminded of an author who was sued for libel by a military figure who claimed that his depiction of a bumbling general was actually a depiction of himself. The author replied: "I (metaphorically) build a shoe. If someone wants to put it on and claim it fits, then that is really their problem not mine." He won the case and the suit was dismissed. A variant might be "It's not what they call you, it's what you answer to..."

If any other readers have strong feelings about Northcape's post, please do pass them along, either in this forum or via a private message. Perhaps reconsideration is appropriate. My Rico can, in any case, over-ride my decision, which I will for now categorize as 'tentative', at any time.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:54 pm

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "...the term 'flat-earth scientists' (and variants) does not seem to be directed specifically at individuals..."
Mr.Jurens, let's try to be serious. Don't even try to tell me that this "forum member" referred to everybody here, as this is simply not true.



A simple question straight to "northcape" then (to see if he is fair enough to take responsibility for what he wrote):

Mr."northcape": Were you addressing as "flat earth scientists" only me (and possibly Antonio) or also your side fellows ?

A direct question, a direct answer, please !


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)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:53 pm

As an aside -- and in a slightly ironic way -- one must remember that being called a 'Flat-Earther' is not, in many quarters, considered in the least-bit derogatory. It can be considered a compliment. Many, many years ago, I was a member -- actually WAS -- of the Flat-Earth Society myself. I thought they had died out, but a check on the internet proves this not to be true.

The purpose of the Flat Earth Society -- if I may speak on their behalf without permission -- is not to prove the earth is flat. It's to study the sometimes intricate processes by which defective but otherwise apparently perfectly sensible premises and observations can lead to incorrect conclusions.

In that regard, some of the arguments put forward for a flat earth are very very clever indeed. The intellectual challenge which one is taking on is to figure out how to demonstrate precisely how the argument itself is flawed, which of course it must be...

So "Flat Earth" people are not necessarily 'nut cases' (although a few probably actually are) -- as the old aphorism goes "There's a fine line between genius and madness...". They are individuals who enjoy studying the methods by which incorrect arguments can be generated, and exposing where the flaws lie. It's an epistemologicall exercise.

Often formulating an incorrect argument takes more intellectual capacity and patience than creating one which is correct...

Bill Jurens.

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by northcape » Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:12 am

I used the term "flat-earther" neither in a derogatory nor in a positive light. I use this expression to distinguish between two approaches: from facts to interpretation vs. from a desired outcome to creation and/or tweaking of evidence. In mathematical terms: from data to model vs. data prediction from models. One more way to put it: opinions vs. facts.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Byron Angel » Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:52 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:59 am
Hello everybody,

I think we should be back to gunnery figures, not discussing Leach behavior when retreating, that is clearly a subjective topic, where anybody is free to have his own personal opinion.

Wadinga wrote: "As far as I can see he nowhere mentions a rate of fire for Prince of Wales,"
very wrong statement:
Santarini_pag.50_PoW_Gunnery_Performance.jpg
Santarini just did not calculate the average effective RoF (because McMullen had already done it for him). If any evidence can be provided that Bismarck varied her RoF significantly, welcome, if not (as apparently) please let's stop claiming unsupported theories and stick to facts.

Now please let's acknowledge the comparison between average figures of PoW and BS (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=300#p82599) or say why in disagreement !


Bye, Alberto

A rate of fire of two salvoes per minute = one round per minute per gun = a competent but unremarkable rate of fire. 1 rpmpg is what the RN expected from capital ship main battery fire in the WW1 era. To say such performance was "excellent" is to venture into the realm of hyperbole, especially when arbitrarily forgiving the effective loss of so many barrels due to mechanical failures in the quadruple turrets and a defective initial approach angle. As it is, rate of fire is of infinitely less significance than the effective rate of hitting. As a case in point, HMS New Zealand fired off more main battery rounds at Jutland (420) than any other ship in the Grand Fleet, yet scored only 4 hits over the entire day (<1pct hits).

B

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by HMSVF » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:50 am

Byron Angel wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:52 am
Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:59 am
Hello everybody,

I think we should be back to gunnery figures, not discussing Leach behavior when retreating, that is clearly a subjective topic, where anybody is free to have his own personal opinion.

Wadinga wrote: "As far as I can see he nowhere mentions a rate of fire for Prince of Wales,"
very wrong statement:
Santarini_pag.50_PoW_Gunnery_Performance.jpg
Santarini just did not calculate the average effective RoF (because McMullen had already done it for him). If any evidence can be provided that Bismarck varied her RoF significantly, welcome, if not (as apparently) please let's stop claiming unsupported theories and stick to facts.

Now please let's acknowledge the comparison between average figures of PoW and BS (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=300#p82599) or say why in disagreement !


Bye, Alberto

A rate of fire of two salvoes per minute = one round per minute per gun = a competent but unremarkable rate of fire. 1 rpmpg is what the RN expected from capital ship main battery fire in the WW1 era. To say such performance was "excellent" is to venture into the realm of hyperbole, especially when arbitrarily forgiving the effective loss of so many barrels due to mechanical failures in the quadruple turrets and a defective initial approach angle. As it is, rate of fire is of infinitely less significance than the effective rate of hitting. As a case in point, HMS New Zealand fired off more main battery rounds at Jutland (420) than any other ship in the Grand Fleet, yet scored only 4 hits over the entire day (<1pct hits).

B

Agree. Surely effective gunnery is plastering your target or at least being in the vicinity. HMS New Zealand is a good example. In purely statistical terms her rate of fire was probably very good. However 4 hits from 420 shots fired is hardly a stella return.

As an aside,by WW2 had the RN abandoned its obsession with firing as fast as possible to try and get more hits (Chatfields solution post Dogger Bank)?

Locked