More on KGV Class main armament problems

[dunmunro]

Gentlemen,
Once again yet another topic has ended up as a rather bad tempered slanging match, this time even involving our moderator who (as always)is doing his very best to keep the peace.Surely, as adults, it must be possible to discuss and debate each others theories and opinions without getting to the stage where contributors are suspended or the thread being locked because we will not accept someones views - even if they are deemed as outrageous by fellow contributors! This forum has given all of us a great deal of pleasure over the years and has no doubt contributed a huge amount of knowledge to us all on a great many subjects and not just Bismarck herself, if this type of aggressive posting carries on every time a new topic is introduced we are in great danger of Bill Jurens getting fed up with the bickering and having to intervene and the whole Forum being closed down by Mr Rico.
Please gentlemen,for the sake of this Forum, let's cool it down a bit and think about our replies and not pour scorn on each others points of view because we do not agree with them.
Come on chaps, we can do this!

Paul, I think you have to be more specific in stating that Mr. Jurens is not culpable and the "slanging match" is really a one sided temper tantrum from someone who now only seems to post only to troll the forum.

The facts are that once A&A put forward their "cowardice and coverup" theory they stepped beyond the pale as serious historians and the resulting years of increasing invective was inevitable. A&A's theory was assembled using the same pseudoscience used by UFO researchers and not surprisingly they managed to hoodwink the odd person along their way.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

I wrote: "each time the tones are lowered, someone from the other side jumps in only to provoke"

Dunmunro wrote: "A&A's theory was assembled using the same pseudoscience used by UFO researchers "

I do consider this sentence a free provocation: let's see what the moderator will say about it...

Our "theory was assembled" using only the written documents available in the British Archives....but, since a while, documents are not discussed anymore here, simply because they are all confirming our "theory".

Someone else has instead repeatedly used the (poor) excuse (based on no scientific method at all...) of "typos", "innocent errors", "old men's failing memories", "flawed poor sailors", "fog of war", etc. to try to deny what has been written...


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Fellow Contributors,

Now we have acceptance:

The Barben's workaround was possibly put in place after the jam occurred, to get the turret ready in case to fire again (at slower RoF) until the ring was back in action at 8:25, thus to "carry on" during the retreat, had Lutjens decided to follow PoW to finish her.

After accidentally giving away useful information that was intended to be withheld along with, apparently, a great deal of other useful information, for commercial reasons presumably, we can move on to examine how this information fits into the general picture. The GAR records the sliding of a shell from the Port shell room, which indeed implies occurring during a turn to port, and it is recorded at salvo 20. However once it again it is imagined that this is a time stamped event.

In fact according to Mr Bonomi's thesis stated as recently as March this year

the firing of the last 2 shells from Y turret in local control occurred on the battle minute 06:04 and at 06:05 the PoW was only sailing away to the south east on retreat.

According to the PoW salvo plot PoW was turning to starboard at salvo 20, not port. Also there would be no point in developing or mentioning a workaround when only one more salvo was fired under local control. Busch's observation confirming Barben implies several shots were fired this way. Of course if those local control salvoes had been as phenomenally-accurate as is alleged, such a process would surely have led to more shots, but of course as we know, no-one, British or German actually saw these shots land so what would be the point of continuing firing?

As I understand the shell ring could contain as many as 16 shells when fully loaded and given PoW's leisurely rate of fire, and high number of missed shots, based on real figures, rather than imaginary ones invented for other vessels, it should have been well stocked when the jam occurred. Assuming the shell ring remained in position with these loading channels at the fore-aft and port-starboard orientation, the forrard and starboard slots could be accessed by aligning the turret, potentially providing as many as eight shells.



[Disappearing text again]
To access shells in the aft location on the shell ring would have required the turret to rotate to a fully forward position to access them- which was impossible.
McMullen's GAR report includes the following:

General remarks on the behaviour of the 14-in. Turrets - During the working up period numerous minor mechanical defects have been experienced in spite of unremitting efforts on the part of the Ordnance staff, and during the operations against Bismarck this state of affairs persisted.
In the circumstances the output achieved might well have been lower. That this was not so was due to the continual efforts of the Ordnance staff and with one exception, to good loading drill in the turrets.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "After accidentally giving away useful information..."

Not at all. After incautiously trusting the given word of a forum member...



Reading the above polemic long post, I was unable to understand what is the point of Mr.Wadinga and what he is trying to demonstrate, once again unwilling to simply admit that he was wrong stating that the shell ring jam could have happened before the turn away...

The shell ring jammed (or at least its jam was acknowledged) at salvo 20 as per PoW GAR (download/file.php?id=3528), surely after Leach decision to break off the engagement (as per Leach own narrative).

When exactly and how the shell slipped into the ring is something I leave to anyone's fantasy (not having any testimony of the involved personnel, any exact sequence of the facts nor any scheme of the revolving ring itself, as well as what was at the time the precise heeling of the ship and the position of her rudder).

My explanation, reading McMullen and Barben, would be that the shell slipped into the ring during the hard turn to port, when the ring was still locked to "ship" position. Then, when the ring traversing responsible started to rotate the ring to align it to the trunk of the turret, the jam occurred. However, this is just my speculation.


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Fellow Contributors,

It has been said

After incautiously trusting the given word of a forum member...

so it is accepted that this part

giving away useful information that was intended to be withheld along with, apparently, a great deal of other useful information, for commercial reasons presumably,

is undisputed. Even that which is now exposed was supposed to remain hidden. Hmm. Progress of a sort.

Peter Hodges in his book The Big Gun, describes the 14" handling procedure in great detail and it is well worth absorbing. Since we have established that trying to tie the jamming of the shell tray precisely to the timing of salvo 20 is incorrect, since the vessel was not turning away, but in fact to starboard at this time and therefore McMullen's record cannot be taken literally, we can consider when the jamming may actually have happened. The reason Y turret stopped firing was apparently starvation of ammunition, and we can estimate how many salvoes back from salvo 21, the supply on the shell ring would have lasted.

Would be interested to see when some forum members have posted the last factual information on this forum. I mean, posting some data, document, or historical argument, not just supporting his team opinions as a football club supporter, without being able to provide any info whatsoever

Considering the reticence of the complainant to supply material already in his possession for some time this is interesting. Just be a little patient...…

BTW we have already established that since A&A wish to revise history they are Revisionists and since they have a theory alleging widespread conspiracy they are Conspiracy Theorists. If they perceive negative connotations with these descriptions that is their own perception, whereas describing people who do not accept their assertions as believers in "fairy tales" is polemic.
All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "it is accepted that this part: "giving away useful information that was intended to be withheld along with, apparently, a great deal of other useful information, for commercial reasons presumably" is undisputed."

No, it is merely presumed by Mr.Wadinga: I don't accept provocations anymore after the repeated bans, thus I can't answer as deserved to these low insinuations...
Let's wait for the moderator to intervene.

"The reason Y turret stopped firing was apparently starvation of ammunition"

Source, please ?



The shell ring resulted jammed at salvo 20: this is the only sure and proven fact (download/file.php?id=3528). It cannot be lightly defined as incorrect (except if Mr.Wadinga has any evidence that can counter the GAR...).
When exactly the shell slid into the ring, I personally don't know. Possibly Mr.Wadinga can explain us (based on evidences, not on speculations, please): we are all extremely interested to his version of facts, after I have provided my one (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&p=83952#p83950).


Bye, Alberto

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,


The facts are that once A&A put forward their "cowardice and coverup" theory they stepped beyond the pale as serious historians and the resulting years of increasing invective was inevitable. A&A's theory was assembled using the same pseudoscience used by UFO researchers and not surprisingly they managed to hoodwink the odd person along their way.

Hi dunmunro
I absolutely agree with you on this point, and have contested the cowardice theory on several occasions in this Forum and while I respect Alberto's and Antonio's views on this matter I can never agree with them on this particular subject.
The point I was trying to put forward is that this constant bickering and occasional rudeness over some things that can not be proved (or in some cases never be proved)unless any remaining papers are released in 28 years time under the 100 year rule, ()if indeed there are any), is not doing the Forum any good. In my humble opinion, Bill Jurens is doing his very best to keep a lid on the discussions and stop them getting out of hand, but if we look back into some of the previous posts even a few years ago, all the same subjects over the Denmark Strait battle and its aftermath have been debated time and time again without usually coming to any firm conclusion because there will always be disagreements and I sometimes wonder if we have not in fact 'done this subject to death' unless, as i said any new evidence comes to light in the future. While I am quite happy to concur that my knowledge on the subject is far outweighed by all the major contributors, I have often wondered if arguing over what happened by the second or minute,how many rounds were fired and by whom and when, plus the rest of the points that have been raised when ships are fighting for their lives are actually relevant or more to the point very accurate having been made in the heat of battle and with he equipment available at the time, so without the exact information, all we can do is make an educated guess.
I'm sorry for such a long post, but it appears that there are only two topics that are getting much attention in this Forum at the moment and both -as other similar threads have reached an impasse with the Moderator having to intervene on several occasions and it seems that no sooner has a topic on a similar subject has closed then another appears under a different heading and all the same old arguments start over again.
Are we coming to the end of what are fascinating debates on what has been and can still be a fascinating Forum because we cannot agree with one another?

[Bill Jurens]

It would appear that at this stage, correspondents have in fact more-or-less 'talked themselves out' regarding issues surrounding the Denmark Strait action and issues surrounding ammunition-handling on the KGV class battleships. Discussions of the actual issues at hand have been largely replaced by rather repetitive insults and accusations, with no measurable progress being made.

Rather than forcing readers to wade through literally pages of offensive invective, continuing to ban members on a likely repetitive basis, spending endless hours redacting statements for content, and after reluctantly concluding that we have, for whatever reasons, reached a stalemate, it is my intention to lock this particular thread sometime on Friday 15 June. As lengthy essays -- at least at this stage -- would seem to serve the issue(s) little more than brief commentary, I would invite each interested participant to deliver one -- and one only -- final summary statement sometime on Thursday. This should be limited to a hundred words or so. More lengthy postings will be redacted, as will portions that appear to represent simple attacks on individuals rather than ideas. Material posted should represent -- at least for now -- each participant's 'closing statement' on the subject.

I will not be encouraging the re-opening of new threads on these particular topics unless or until some truly new and heretofore unseen material is being presented. Note that this policy would exclude simple re-analysis, i.e. re-analyzing or restating materials, documentary and otherwise, already presented. The 'new' material should really BE new, and spring from a primary or nearly-primary source, or at least originate from someone other than one of the existing well-known participants.

I hope this will help to move the forum into more fertile and productive grounds.

Bill Jurens
(as moderator)

[wadinga]

Revered Moderator,

Pray stay your hand. I hope very shortly to have two "truly new and heretofore unseen "documents from the National Archives by Dudley Pound (signature green ink!) and Oliver Bevin Director of Naval Ordnance commenting directly on this subject.

All the best

wadinga

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
Before this thread is locked, I would like to suggestthat there should be no more allegations of cowardice towards Capt Leach in any further topics
No doubt his decision to disengage raised some eyebrows at the Admiralty before all the facts were known, but not as much as if two capital ships had been lost in a matter of hours which was a distinct possibility. Naval discipline was and still is very strict, as we have seen from the removal of the Captain of the new Queen Elizabeth over a comparatively minor matter and the fact that Capt Leach retained his captaincy of PoW proves that his explanation for disengaging was approved at the highest level in Naval circles.
Had Capt Leach still been alive accusations of this sort might easily have led to court action not only against those who made them but even against this Forum, to make them about someone who cannot answer back is, in my opinion shameful..

[Byron Angel]

Hi Paul,
Your suggestion would indeed go far towards reducing "the temperature" here.

Byron

[Bill Jurens]

All though there have been some rather militant postings early in the week, insofar as things seem to have calmed down quite a bit lately, and insofar as Wadinga has suggested that he has some new material to post, I will defer to his request and keep this thread open, i.e. unlocked, until and unless an argumentative tone returns. I hope it does not.

I tend to concur that in the absence of clear and indisputable evidence, the repetitive defamation of the dead -- in this case Captain Leach and/or some of his consorts -- while legally permissible (it appears that one cannot, in most jurisdictions, actually libel the dead, which explains why so many revelations and 'memoirs' are written soon after the demise of a celebrity), is something that most correspondents (including myself) find rather distasteful and inappropriate.

Had Leach and others actually been tried and convicted of various and sundry inadequacies via a Court Martial or Inquiry one might take the case as 'proven', in which case further commentary might be considered appropriate. In the absence of such inquiry results -- which, it must be remembered might have actually 'cleared' the accused -- suppositions regarding their actual guilt or innocence, particularly considering the relative dearth of factual evidence at hand, might be most appropriately considered problematical. We cannot really reconstruct the Denmark Strait battle in undisputed detail, and even if we could, it would appear to be almost impossible to determine whether Leach's turn-away, and perhaps other actions, were due to prudence, timidity, the effects of incoming gunfire, or some other tactical or strategic issue about which we know nothing about.

This discussion, or sequence of discussions, would appear to break down into two separate phases:

a) Creating the best reconstruction -- if any very detailed reconstruction is possible at all -- of the action at Denmark Strait, and

b) Determining whether or not such a reconstruction, including or excluding additional evidence, can reliably support accusations of cowardice and ineptitude on the part of Leach, and perhaps others. Until "a" can be completed, "b" -- if it can be intelligently debated at all -- can only be discussed via the introduction of new evidence.

Simply rehashing and reinterpreting evidence already made available on this board would seem to represent an essentially futile endeavor. So, I think as a general policy we would be better off restricting ourselves to the discussion, interpretation, and integration of NEW evidence, rather than the reheating of old, which seems to lead only to chronic intellectual indigestion.

In that regard, I will keep the thread open awaiting the receipt of Wadinga's allegedly new, and potentially useful, evidence.

In anticipation of the receipt of Wadinga's 'new' evidence, I would, as always, request that members keep commentary on this thread minimal, positive, and constructive in tone.

Bill Jurens

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Paul Mercer wrote: "I would like to suggest that there should be no more allegations of cowardice towards Capt Leach in any further topics"

Hi Paul,
first of all, thanks for your usual kind post and respectful tones.

It's true we have exceeded when accusing Leach, Wake-Walker and Ellis of "cowardice", but please keep in mind we did it in the heat of a discussion where other people pretended that all the involved officers were kind of perfect heroes, without any possible weakness. Thus, it's clear some excesses were done. I personally have always tried to speak only about the decision timidity and not about personal cowardice.

I say that Leach's difficult decision (IMO, the other 2 cases are quite different...) was just "poor" from a military viewpoint. Leach was there with a precise task: preventing Bismarck to get in Atlantic and to perform her mission. When he took his decision (after Hood demise, as per his final report preface, due to his lack of confidence in his ship/crew) or after the CP hit (as per evidences based on shell trajectory and PoW maps)), he gave up the mission against an undamaged enemy (as per his knowledge, at the time), with his ship still being able to fight and to damage Bismarck.
These are facts, and I can justify his decision only with hindsight (Bismarck finally sunk, without any further loss), but this consideration has nothing to do with the decision taken on May 24, 1941 at 06:01.

Whether Leach acted coldly, taking a reasoned decision (based on his view of PoW preparation), or whether he panicked after the CP hit (that would not strictly make him a "coward" anyway, as anyone would have been shocked by such an event, especially if temporarily stunned: for sure, other commanding officers in the history reacted differently...), only an Inquiry / Court Martial could have decided, questioning all witnesses, (as it did with Troubridge in WWI...) and establishing whether he had withdrawn from the fight "properly", with any "negligence" or for "cowardice" (Articles of War in force, art.2 paragraph 3 https://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm).

In view of the successful final outcome of the operation, however, British wisely decided not to inquiry anyone and official reports were adjusted to support his decision, approved by the Admiralty and by politicians: it's the absolutely normal (even in peacetime, in any human organization, and RN is no exception) way of "fixing" such a "problem".


I hope this clarifies my opinion once forever and I would just add that in order to "reduce the temperature" here also the avoidance of provocation and personal attacks would help immensely, as I have written to the moderator viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=105#p83938 (without any answer yet to my constructive critics...), signalling further excesses in the following posts.

Bye, Alberto

[Bill Jurens]

I am glad to see that a more conciliatory tone seems to be falling over us lately. Let us hope that it -- accompanied of course by reasonable debate as required -- continues.

So far as revisiting previous 'provocations', perhaps improperly handled, my feeling is that rather than re-open old wounds, it might be better to simply let sleeping dogs lie and concentrate on exhibiting better behavior in the future, rather than re-hashing poorer behavior in the past...

Bill Jurens.

[Alberto Virtuani]

...neglected wounds can have harmful effects, though.

"Someone" might have already got the "impression" he is allowed to freely provoke (e.g. using implicitly insulting words viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=105#p83938, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=105#p83941, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8556&start=105#p83939) and get out totally unpunished...



I do hope everybody will be able to discuss in a polite way even when in strong disagreement (as per Paul Mercer examples).


Alberto