PoW, Bismarck, Vittorio Veneto Torpedo Hits

[José M. Rico]

Location of torpedo hits on Prince of Wales, Bismarck, and Vittorio Veneto.

[paulcadogan]

Hello all,

PoW and VV's hits are in remarkably similar locations, and both ended up with severe flooding and were down by the stern. But I suspect PoW's was worse when the damaged shaft was restarted and "drilled" out a pathway for further major flooding.

So my question is: If PoW had received no further damage from any other torpedoes, would she have been able to regain enough steering control to limp back to harbour with her port engines like VV did? (Didn't VV have rudder issues too?)

Paul

[Pukovnik7]

Hello all,

PoW and VV's hits are in remarkably similar locations, and both ended up with severe flooding and were down by the stern. But I suspect PoW's was worse when the damaged shaft was restarted and "drilled" out a pathway for further major flooding.

So my question is: If PoW had received no further damage from any other torpedoes, would she have been able to regain enough steering control to limp back to harbour with her port engines like VV did? (Didn't VV have rudder issues too?)

Paul

It is likely. In fact, document "Death of the Battleship" that I read through when writing about loss of PoW myself states outright that had Prince of Wales not had to restart the engine, and been able to actually take a break from the attack to limp back to Singapore, she would have survived that hit alone:
https://pacificwrecks.com/ships/hms/pri ... update.pdf
https://pacificwrecks.com/ships/hms/pri ... damage.pdf
https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/f ... vised).pdf

[Cag]

Hi All,

Hi Paul, unfortunately the initial torpedo hit on Prince of Wales caused a great deal of damage above and beyond the fact that a large hole was in the ship.

The torpedo managed to break off the A bracket holding the propeller shaft in place and also bent the shaft (rather like the starboard side hit that bent the outer shaft inwards and jammed the inner shaft) this flailing shaft was spinning at high revolutions and in the time it took to stop the shaft, the damage was done.

As Puknovic7 says, the release of astern steam on the stopped shaft didn't help matters but the standard orders were to trail the shaft, ie allow it to spin so as not to cause drag, the propeller itself had been lost but of course this was not known at the time.

The plating loss also caused damage to the port inner shaft which had to be stopped and in a similar process left to trail, internally B engine room was flooded, Y boiler room was flooding as was the large harbour machinery room. The shaft passages and the compartments adjacent were also flooded or flooding.

The main problem was that the after half of the ship was effectively dead as far as electric power was concerned, this meant pumps required for setting up a flood barrier had to be the portable type and brought in, steering was electrical and so PoW put up her "not under control" signal as she couldn't steer.

Attempts were made to switch to steam powered steering but it was never achieved. The crew hearing explosions also decided to flood her aft 5.25 inch magazines further adding to her internal water volume.

As to your question if PoW had not have received further damage could she have reached safety, that would depend on if Repulse had also survived as a tow would probably have been necessary, the crew quite probably could have stopped further flooding, may have been able to have the time to repair the electrical ring main and return power to the after part of the ship, but I'm afraid PoW would still have been a sitting duck for the numerous Japanese submarines in the area already hunting Force Z, not to mention the 8 inch guns cruisers of Ozawa and the battleships Kongo and Haruna of Admiral Kondo.

Perhaps in this alternate reality we would have seen a much more involved drawn out battle of Malaya?

Best wishes
Cag.

[paulcadogan]

As to your question if PoW had not have received further damage could she have reached safety, that would depend on if Repulse had also survived as a tow would probably have been necessary, the crew quite probably could have stopped further flooding, may have been able to have the time to repair the electrical ring main and return power to the after part of the ship, but I'm afraid PoW would still have been a sitting duck for the numerous Japanese submarines in the area already hunting Force Z, not to mention the 8 inch guns cruisers of Ozawa and the battleships Kongo and Haruna of Admiral Kondo.

Agreed Cag, it might have been similar to Bismarck's story! VV was able to get underway again in about 10 minutes, so her damage was clearly not as far-reaching. But another factor is the small aircraft capacity of the first 3 Illustrious class carriers. Had Formidable had another squadron of Swordfish or Albacores available, there may have been aircraft in the air to strike VV again while she was most vulnerable, and (given the fact that Littorio's bow sank to the harbour bottom at Taranto) possibly sink her. As it turned out, when they were able to attack again, the got the Pola instead....

In fact, document "Death of the Battleship" that I read through when writing about loss of PoW myself states outright that had Prince of Wales not had to restart the engine, and been able to actually take a break from the attack to limp back to Singapore, she would have survived that hit alone:

Yes. I read that document years ago - maybe able to survive were it not for the other surrounding circumstances, as it was for Bismarck.

Paul

[Cag]

Hi All,

Hi Paul, indeed, the problem was that no one could imagine the extent of the damage, especially as the column of water thrown up was alongside Y turret

Prince of Wales developed such a large a list to port that her quarterdeck was awash, no one could quite understand her loss, even at the Bucknill Committee inquiry they couldn't equate the amount of damage with the known observed torpedo hits, thinking it was a failure of the SPS. Despite eyewitness testimony from crew stationed in compartments through which the shaft ran stating they saw the shaft catastrophically fail, the board members regarded the evidence as "mistaken or exaggeration".

It wasn't until a 1960's naval survey that the damage was discovered and the mystery solved, unfortunately now illegal salvage has all but destroyed that evidence, my fear is that much like the wrecks of the Java Sea Repulse and Peince of Wales may go the same way and gradually dissappear.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Kev D]

Hi Gents,

A little late with this input to the thread but better late than never I've heard say.

Anyway, don't mean to split hairs too finely nor be too pedantic, but............................for the record, that port hit on PoW was slightly further forward than where the OP's diagram above shows.
.

[Kev D]

It wasn't until a 1960's naval survey that the damage was discovered and the mystery solved, .............

That survey you quote Cag is the main reason that for many years the torpedo hole was thought to be almost adjacent to the A Bracket. That is, in that report it states that the hole starts "a few feet forward" of the A Bracket, when in fact its starts 'about' 6 mts / yds foward.

The torpedo managed to break off the A bracket holding the propeller shaft in place and also bent the shaft (rather like the starboard side hit that bent the outer shaft inwards and jammed the inner shaft) this flailing shaft was spinning at high revolutions and in the time it took to stop the shaft, the damage was done.

Re the above (now underlined) and 'bent shaft'. This can only remain conjecture unless the missing length of shaft and prop, or at least the missing length of shaft (which is of course probably still attached to the prop) is ever found. After all, we really don't know if or how much the shaft may have bent, nor when it actually separated.

EDIT: Fixed typo (8 mts should have read 6)

[paulcadogan]

Thanks for the clarification Kevin.

Cag wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 3:44 am
The torpedo managed to break off the A bracket holding the propeller shaft in place and also bent the shaft (rather like the starboard side hit that bent the outer shaft inwards and jammed the inner shaft) this flailing shaft was spinning at high revolutions and in the time it took to stop the shaft, the damage was done.

KevD wrote: Re the above (now underlined) and 'bent shaft'. This can only remain conjecture unless the missing length of shaft and prop, or at least the missing length of shaft (which is of course probably still attached to the prop) is ever found. After all, we really don't know if or how much the shaft may have bent, nor when it actually separated.

To illustrate what you're saying Kevin, here's a clipping from Death of a Battleship (p. 31):

[Cag]

Hi All,

Hi Kevin, Hi Paul, yes Im afraid it's conjecture, if, when and how much the shaft was affected, but it is great that someone who actually dived on the wrecks gives us these insights, a big thank you.

I'm guessing that the shaft must have been affected in some way due to the torpedo, but as you say we cannot know exactly when the loss etc occurred, either initially or when restarting the shaft, I assume that a lot of major damage was done whilst the shaft was at high revolutions for the speed PoW was travelling at the time of the attack, plus then the action of the astern steam pressure to stop and then attempts to restart or trail the shaft wouldnt have helped.

I'm hoping to see the private papers of DBH Wildish, PoW damage control officer and the man in charge of B engine room at the time, he stopped the shaft due to a perceived problem but as you say just when events occurred are unknown. Hopefully his diary may reveal more, if so I'll let you know.

Thanks again for your help and information, it's always very much appreciated,

Best wishes
Cag.

[Kev D]

Hi Cag, Paul,

Seems we are hijacking this thread somewhat by settling on just one of the ships from the OP to discuss, but.................if there is a problem with that I assume a mod can tell us, or move the PoW discussion to its own thread.

That being said Cag, very interesting if you can get hold of any papers that belonged to Adm Wildish!

Now I don't suppose you have the actual report from the RN divers survey from 1966 do you? I thought I had it but upon much looking realise I was probably thinking of what is in the back of M and M's Battleship book (below), i.e. a 'personal account' by one of the team members (its leader?). Be interesting to see the actual report.

I kinda scratch my head somewhat regards what he has written in M and M's book though. As mentioned in an above post, ('topic C' in attached is) where "a few feet" forward of the A Bracket comes from for port hole, but 'topic B' in same is even more 'intriguing' in stating that the starboard aft hole is only 6ft in diameter, when in fact it is the biggest of all four holes at 11mts long by 4mts high (36ft x 13ft)! I can only put those discrepancies down to what they were breathing (air) at depth and their operational limit of 180ft (54mts), as both those holes are deeper than that (the seabed itself aft is about 68m / 223ft).

[Bill Jurens]

"I kinda scratch my head somewhat regards what he has written in M and M's book though.

Sorry to be dumb, but there are a lotta battleship books out there. I'm drawing a blank. What book is this, exactly?

Bill Jurens.

[Kev D]

"I kinda scratch my head somewhat regards what he has written in M and M's book though.

Sorry to be dumb, but there are a lotta battleship books out there. I'm drawing a blank. What book is this, exactly?

Bill Jurens.

Pardon Bill, Battleship by Middlebrook and Mahoney (M & M).

[Bill Jurens]

Thanks' Got 'er now...

Bill Jurens

[paul.mercer]

Has anyone produced an article or pictures on the state of HMS Repulse?