KGV and PoW v Bismarck at the Denmark Strait

AFAIK all the other German warships that broke into the Atlantic in 1940-41 did so via the Denmark Strait. So what if Tovey assumed that the Germans would go that way again when Bismarck and Prinz Eugen sortied and took a calculated risk by sending King George V and Prince of Wales to guard the Denmark Strait? Hood would be kept back with Repulse and Victorious to guard the passage between Iceland and Scotland.
 
Then Bismarck would be in serious trouble since King George V is fully worked up and Prince of Wales almost worked up. Also Tovey would order the cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk two attack Prinz Eugen. Also it depends on what other ships Admiral Tovey would have with the King George V and Prince of Wales.
 
Assume KGV is leading POW and that their destroyers are with them as there isn't a mad dash to get into position.
Also assume that Bismarck and PE have been spotted and KGV/POW are able to take up a blocking position which crosses Bismarck's T.
Also assume that PE is leading Bismarck as at DS.

Result: PE gets shot to pieces, Bismarck turns round at retreats at full speed. She can outrun the KGVs (1-1.5 kt advantage, maybe more if the KGVs have to slow to shoot the forward guns?) but it might take a while to get out of range after figuring out what she's walked into and having had to make the turn. There's a possibility that hits on Bismarck's stern could damage the steering gear or prop shafts, resulting in slowing, but it's just as likely that hits on the KGVs' bows could slow them and let Bismarck get away more easily.

Bismarck retreats to Norway and is joined by Tirpitz in due course, causing pericombobulations for the Arctic convoys. POW is not sent east and is not lost off Malaya.
 

Driftless

Donor
Kudos for the use of "pericombobulations"! ;)

A damaged Bismark makes a getaway back to Norway. Were there shipyards/drydocks in Norway to handle a ship as large as the Bismark? Barnes-Wallis would need to get busy. Perhaps an earlier appearance of the bouncing bomb, or blockbusters? The bouncing bomb was originally dreamed up as a means of sinking warships behind torpedo nets.
 

Driftless

Donor
Also, if the Bismark is damaged and attempts to return to Norway, might the Hood & co be in position to intercept? It's a big ocean, but there would have been a limited number of courses to follow and the Denmark Strait route now has the KGV & POW blocking that avenue.
 
Last edited:
Also, if the Bismark is damaged and attempts to return to Norway, might the Hood & co be in position to intercept? It's a big ocean, but there would have been a limited number of courses to follow and the Denmark Strait route now has the KGV & POW blocking that avenue.
Norfolk and Suffolk would be shadowing Bismarck by radar so my guess is that Victorious (if in range) would make an air strike to try and slow Bismarck down enough for KGV and POW to catch up.
 
Actually I misread the entire scenario as Bismarck using the Faroes Passage instead of the Denmark Strait. I did wonder why N&S had moved... :confused: So let's try again...

Assume that KGV and POW leave the destroyers behind as OTL in order to make the intercept. They have their T crossed by Bis and PE as OTL.
Assume that Tovey in KGV is ahead of POW.
Assume that PE leads Bismarck as OTL.
Assume that KGV identifies the German ships correctly (as she did OTL) and thus both KGVs shoot at Bismarck.

PE is not receiving fire. She finds the range quickly and starts hitting KGV. Assume to little serious effect - no "lucky" hits on bridge or fire control.
Who does Bismarck fire at? Presumably POW second in line, to avoid having a British ship firing unhindered. Assume that Bismarck starts hitting POW at a rate similar to Hood OTL.

Assume that POW starts hitting Bismarck at a rate similar to OTL, and that KGV starts hitting Bismarck at a similar rate.
Assume that POW suffers gun/turret problems, but that KGV doesn't, because of a more experienced crew.

POW is quickly degraded by hits and breakdowns. KGV handles PE's fire well. Bismarck is pretty safe against citadel penetrations at this range (although note the OTL penetration by POW) but her hull, firepower and fire control are all vulnerable.

Most likely result: Bismarck suffers disabled turrets/FC and turns back through the Denmark Strait. POW is seriously damaged and returns home. KGV joins up with N&S and pursues, while trying to vector Hood and Victorious(?) in. Not sure whether Hood can make an intercept, but Victorious can send in some Swordfish, which might be able to slow Bismarck or PE down. If so, they're probably sunk. If not, they make it back to Norway.
 
Not convinced that she would, really. She's needed too much, even if Bismarck is sunk, to counter Tirpitz, the Twins or to head East. A deep refit of even just a year would take her out of service for too long.

The only way I see Hood getting a deep refit is if she suffers serious damage. Imagine if Bismarck had put a shell into a engine or boiler room at DS instead of the magazine, before being disabled by Hood's/POW's fire. Repairs would take much of a year and there'd be the opportunity to sort her armour out at the same time.
 
KGV with 'Half' a POW as well? - Bismarck's clock is well and truly cleaned

In the original battle the Hood and POW arrived at a disadvantage having to drive into waves at speed which caused a great deal of spray that obscured the main rangefinders (although Hoods first salvo of 4 x 15" shells did bracket PE) - also Hood was totally worn out capable of only 28 knots and i am not sure if that was sustainable - KGV and POW are Brand new and both capable of sustaining 28+ knots so given the same start they might have arrived ahead of the Bismarck and PE (as planned)

Also the 'turn' had to be made at a distance where Plunging fire would not threaten the Hood as much (in order that the Bismarcks fire was striking the Belt and not the hull) - the KGV and POW could have made the turn much sooner (ie at further range as their deck armour and protection was vastly superior) thus bringing their rear turrets into play and reducing the spray impacting the Directors (which again were superior to the Hoods)

POW hit Bismarck 3 times - 1 of the hits did little damage - although it did disable Bismarck's Aircraft - the remaining 2 mission killed the German ship and reduced her speed to 28 knots

How many times would KGV hit Bismarck? Would further hits reduce her speed more to the point where she could not escape the closing net?

Lastly POWs 5.25" guns were largely ineffective OTL largely due to damage and malfunctions impacting her secondary directors

KGV having been worked up would have been able to engage PE with her secondaries which were capable of causing damage to the Cruiser and again any hit that reduced her speed would very likely result in the eventual loss of the Cruiser

And then does Hood go to the US for a badly needed deep refit?

Lets hope so - Puget Sound please :)
 
Not convinced that she would, really. She's needed too much, even if Bismarck is sunk, to counter Tirpitz, the Twins or to head East. A deep refit of even just a year would take her out of service for too long.

The only way I see Hood getting a deep refit is if she suffers serious damage. Imagine if Bismarck had put a shell into a engine or boiler room at DS instead of the magazine, before being disabled by Hood's/POW's fire. Repairs would take much of a year and there'd be the opportunity to sort her armour out at the same time.

Hood was absolutely knackered - a quick refit after Mers El Kabir (where she stripped turbine blades trying to get above 26 knots to chase the French ships) only addressed some of the more serious problems - I cannot see her continuing to serve without a substantial refit.

DOY is commissioned in August - so assuming the Bismarck is gone - Britain has 3 Fast Modern battleships and 1 refitted Battlecruiser (Renown) and 2 Un Refitted Battlecruisers (Repulse and Hood) - Tirpitz still has not finished training / working up at this point so the RN has sufficient overlap to allow the old girl her much needed refit.
 
KGV with 'Half' a POW as well? - Bismarck's clock is well and truly cleaned

In the original battle the Hood and POW arrived at a disadvantage having to drive into waves at speed which caused a great deal of spray that obscured the main rangefinders (although Hoods first salvo of 4 x 15" shells did bracket PE) - also Hood was totally worn out capable of only 28 knots and i am not sure if that was sustainable - KGV and POW are Brand new and both capable of sustaining 28+ knots so given the same start they might have arrived ahead of the Bismarck and PE (as planned)

Also the 'turn' had to be made at a distance where Plunging fire would not threaten the Hood as much (in order that the Bismarcks fire was striking the Belt and not the hull) - the KGV and POW could have made the turn much sooner (ie at further range as their deck armour and protection was vastly superior) thus bringing their rear turrets into play and reducing the spray impacting the Directors (which again were superior to the Hoods)

POW hit Bismarck 3 times - 1 of the hits did little damage - although it did disable Bismarck's Aircraft - the remaining 2 mission killed the German ship and reduced her speed to 28 knots

How many times would KGV hit Bismarck? Would further hits reduce her speed more to the point where she could not escape the closing net?

Lastly POWs 5.25" guns were largely ineffective OTL largely due to damage and malfunctions impacting her secondary directors

KGV having been worked up would have been able to engage PE with her secondaries which were capable of causing damage to the Cruiser and again any hit that reduced her speed would very likely result in the eventual loss of the Cruiser



Lets hope so - Puget Sound please :)

I would imagine she would go to an east coast yard. HMS Rodney went to Boston at that time and Malaya went to New York.
 
It would prove interesting if the two KGV battle ships might pull off sinking both ships. Even if they can mission kill them, they might delay their return until a carrier can slip in to launch some strikes. If neither ship returns to Norway, will Hitler scrap the KM surface ships sooner?
 
The result depends on which ship the Bismark engaged first, given that the Prince of Wales's guns malfuntioned in the actual battle. If the KGV had been selected as the primary target, the prognosis would have been rather dim for the British ships, in view of the fact that the Bismark had superior gunnery control. It is unlikely, however that Lutjens would have pursued the battle to the point of destruction, since he missed the opportunity to sink the Prince of Wales in the historical battle.
 
The result depends on which ship the Bismark engaged first, given that the Prince of Wales's guns malfuntioned in the actual battle. If the KGV had been selected as the primary target, the prognosis would have been rather dim for the British ships, in view of the fact that the Bismark had superior gunnery control. It is unlikely, however that Lutjens would have pursued the battle to the point of destruction, since he missed the opportunity to sink the Prince of Wales in the historical battle.
IIRC one of KGV's quad turrets broke down in its battle with the Bismarck IOTL. What's the likelihood of it also happening in this fictional encounter?

This is interesting because I was expecting the answer the OP to be, "Bismarck and Prinz Eugen are sunk."
 
POWs guns broke down because she should have still been in a ship Yard and had workers from Vickers still on board trying to rectify the known issues with them -NOT - because of damage inflicted by Bismarck and PE (although IIRC at least 1 of POWs 5.25 directors was disabled when a 8" shell severed the electronic cables)

1 of POWs guns was known to be defective and it was known that it would not be able to fire after the first shot and there were known issues with the Y turret

And even then I don't think POW ever dropped below 5 guns (and still managed to mission kill Bismarck)

KGV did not have 100% availability during the action with Bismarck - but then she still fired for the first 30 odd minutes of her action before any issues were experienced (by which time the action had been decided)

So that's still at least 15 guns to Bismarck's 8 - if the action had not been decided one way or another during this time then something must be seriously adrift

Also there was a fairly large number of ships that were closing in - including 2 heavy Cruisers and a flotilla of DDs that would no doubt have closed the range and attacked if the 2 German ships were badly hit.

Nothing is certain in war - but had Hood been replaced with KGV then I don't think that Bismarck and PE are making it out of the Denmark Strait
 
POWs guns broke down because she should have still been in a ship Yard and had workers from Vickers still on board trying to rectify the known issues with them -NOT - because of damage inflicted by Bismarck and PE (although IIRC at least 1 of POWs 5.25 directors was disabled when a 8" shell severed the electronic cables)

1 of POWs guns was known to be defective and it was known that it would not be able to fire after the first shot and there were known issues with the Y turret

And even then I don't think POW ever dropped below 5 guns (and still managed to mission kill Bismarck)

KGV did not have 100% availability during the action with Bismarck - but then she still fired for the first 30 odd minutes of her action before any issues were experienced (by which time the action had been decided)

So that's still at least 15 guns to Bismarck's 8 - if the action had not been decided one way or another during this time then something must be seriously adrift

Also there was a fairly large number of ships that were closing in - including 2 heavy Cruisers and a flotilla of DDs that would no doubt have closed the range and attacked if the 2 German ships were badly hit.

Nothing is certain in war - but had Hood been replaced with KGV then I don't think that Bismarck and PE are making it out of the Denmark Strait


Actually HMS Prince of Wales at one time had no main guns in operation, during her fight with Bismarck, as both quadruple turrets continued to have problems and the remaining twin turret occasionally had defects as well, mainly due to the complexity of the savetysystems in the loadingmechanism, not so much the turret itself. Occasoanlyy the arc of fire was compromizsed, so only the aft turret could ber on the target, which itself was temporarily out of action occasionally.

See:
REPORT ON EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED IN 14in TURRETS
23rdTO 25thMAY

Friday, 23rdMay

A - Events prior to First Action

The order to load the cages was given late in the afternoon. In the course of loading the following defects developed:-

  1. "A" Turret
    No. 2 gun loading cage: Front flashdoors could not be opened fully from the transverser compartment and the cage could not be loaded. Examination showed that the front casing had been badly burred by being struck by the lugs carrying the guide rollers on the gun loading rammer head when the latter was making a "withdrawing" stroke.

    This was cleared by filing and the other gun loading cages were examined for the same defect. Slight burring was found in some cases and was dressed away.

    No. 1 gun: On ramming shell the second time after the order "Load", the shell arrestor at the shell ring level jammed out and could not be freed before the first action.

    While steaming at high speed, large quantities of sea water entered "A" turret round the gun ports and through the joints of the gunhouse roof. It became necessary to rig canvas screens in the transverser space and bale the compartment.

  2. "B" Turret
No. 2 central ammunition hoist: Arrestor at shell ring level would not withdraw after ramming shell. It is impossible to strip this in place in the Mark II mounting, and the arrestor was removed complete. The axis pin of the pinion driving the inner tube of the arrestor had seized. There does not appear to be any effective means of lubricating this pin. The pin was drilled out and removed and the arrestor re-assembled. It was not, however, possible to replace the arrestor before action stations was ordered, because at this stage a defect developed in the hinge trays of the forward shell room as described below. This latter defect was taken in hand immediately in order to free the revolving shell ring and was completed a few minutes after action stations. It was not then considered advisable to proceed with replacing the arrestor.

Hinge trays at forward shell room fouled the locking bolt on the revolving shell ring: both trays being bent.

Saturday, 24thMay

During the early hours hydraulic pressure failed on the revolving shell ring ship control in "B" turret. This was due to the pressure supply to the turret from the starboard side of the ring main being isolated. The revolving shell ring ship control is fed from the starboard side only, and the non-return valves on the pressure main adjacent to the centre pivot prevent pressure being fed to the starboard side and the revolving shell ring ship control from the port side in the event of the former being isolated from the ring main. Similar conditions exist on the port side of "A" and the starboard side of "Y". It is considered essential that a cross connection be fitted in the shell handling room with two non-return valves so that the revolving shell ring ship control can be supplied from either side of the ring main.

B - Events during the First Action

The following defects developed in "A" turret:-

  1. "A" Turret
    On several occasions the shell ring rammers fouled the brackets on the hinge trays for No. 11 interlock. Shell could not be rammed until the bearing of the turret was changed. This also occurred in "Y" but did not prevent ramming.

    No. 1 gun only fired one salvo, due to the events described in A (i).

    After the second salvo, No. 24A interlock failed on No. 2 shell ring rammer. It was tripped after a short delay and thereafter assisted by hand.

    About halfway through the firing, the tappets operating the shell ring arrestor release gear on No. 4 rammer failed to release the arrestor. Subsequent examination has shown that the shaft carrying the levers operating these tappets had twisted. The rammer was kept in action by giving the tappets a heavy blow at each stroke.

    Shortly after this, a further defect occurred on No. 4 shell room rammer. When fully withdrawn the rammer failed to clear No. 7 interlock and the ring could not be locked. This was overcome by operating the gear with a pinch-bar at every stroke.

    Throughout the engagement the conditions in "A" shell handling room were very bad; water was pouring down from the upper part of the mounting. Only one drain is fitted and became choked; with the result that water accumulated and washed from side to side as the ship rolled. The streams above and floods below drenched the machinery and caused discomfort to the personnel. More drains should be fitted in the shell handling room and consideration given to a system of water catchment combined with improved drainage in the upper parts of the revolving structure. Every effort is being made to improve the pressure systems and further attempts will be made as soon as opportunity occurs to improve the mantlet weathering, but a certain amount of leaking is inevitable.

  2. "B" Turret
    No mechanical defects.

  3. "Y" Turret
The following defects occurred in "Y" turret:-

Salvo 11- No. 3 central ammunition hoist was raised with shell but no cordite; No. 25 interlock having failed to prevent this. The interlock was functioning correctly before the engagement. There has been no opportunity to investigate this. It is also reported that the reason no cordite had been rammed was that the indicator in the cordite handling room did not show that the cage had been raised after the previous ramming stroke. This caused the gun to miss salvoes 15 to 20.

Salvo 12- Front flashdoors of No. 2 gun loading cage failed to open and cage could not be loaded. Flashdoors on transfer tubes were working correctly and investigation showed that adjustment was required on the vertical rod operating the palm levers which open the gun loading cage doors. To make this adjustment, three-quarter inch thread had to be cut on the rod. This defect was put in hand after the engagement had been broken off and was completed by 1300. It would appear that the operating gear had been strained, possibly by the foreign matter in the flashdoor casing making the doors tight. The doors were free when tried in the course of making the repair. This caused the gun to miss salvo 14 onwards.

Salvo 20- Owing to the motion of the ship, a shell slid out of the port shell room and fouled the revolving shell ring while the latter was locked to the trunk and the turret was training. The hinge tray was severely buckled, putting the revolving shell ring out of action. The tray was removed, but on testing the ring it was found that No. 3 and 4 hinge trays of the starboard shell room had also been buckled and were fouling the ring. The cause of this is not yet known. The trays were removed and as the action had stopped by this time, No. 4 tray was dressed up and replaced. The ring was out of action until 0825.

C - Events subsequent to First Action

During the day in "A" turret, No. 1 central ammunition hoist shell arrestor was driven back with the intention of carrying on without it by ramming cautiously. The gun and cages were then loaded, but owing to the motion of the ship the round in the central ammunition hoist cage slid forward until its nose entered the arrestor, putting the hoist out of action again. Subsequent examination has shown that the anti-surging gear in this cage was stiff and consequently did not re-assert itself after ramming to traverser.

D - Events during the Second Action

"A" Turret

No. 1 gun fired only two salvoes owing to central ammunition hoist being out of action as described above in C, para 1. At salvo 9, No. 3 central ammunition hoist shell arrestor jammed out.

"B" and "Y" Turret

Clean shoot.

E - Events subsequent to Second Action

"A" Turret

No. 3 central ammunition hoist shell arrestor was removed complete from the hoist. Time did not allow of it being stripped and made good, but it was intended to use the hoist without it. The gun and cages were loaded in this manner.

F - Third Action

"A" Turret

First Salvo - Shell rammed short into No. 3 central ammunition hoist cage. In trying to remedy this a double ram was made, putting the shell ring out of action. The second shell was hauled back by tackle, clearing the ring. The base of the shell in the central ammunition hoist cage was jamming against the upper edge of the opening in the hoist. This could not be cleared as the central ammunition hoist control lever cold not be put to lower. After much stripping the trouble was located in a link in the control gear which was found to be out of line.

"B" Turret

Clean shoot.

G - General

With pressure being kept on shell room machinery for a long period, much water has accumulated in the shell rooms and bins. Suctions are fitted from 350-tomnm pumps only and these are not satisfactory for dealing with relatively small quantities of water. Drains are urgently required. It is suggested that a drain be fitted at each end of each shell room and larger drain holes be made in the bins; present drain holes being quite inadequate and easily choked.

The drains should be led to the inner bottom under the cordite handling room. Non-return valves and flash-seals could be fitted if considered necessary.

On passage to Rosyth after the action, two further hinge trays in "Y" shell handling room were buckled by fouling the revolving shell ring.

[Enclosure(IV)]

Exhibit A. Click to enlarge


Exhibit B. Click to enlarge
 
Actually HMS Prince of Wales at one time had no main guns in operation, during her fight with Bismarck, as both quadruple turrets continued to have problems and the remaining twin turret occasionally had defects as well, mainly due to the complexity of the savetysystems in the loadingmechanism, not so much the turret itself. Occasoanlyy the arc of fire was compromizsed, so only the aft turret could ber on the target, which itself was temporarily out of action occasionally.

See:
REPORT ON EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED IN 14in TURRETS
23rdTO 25thMAY

Friday, 23rdMay

A - Events prior to First Action

The order to load the cages was given late in the afternoon. In the course of loading the following defects developed:-

  1. "A" Turret
    No. 2 gun loading cage: Front flashdoors could not be opened fully from the transverser compartment and the cage could not be loaded. Examination showed that the front casing had been badly burred by being struck by the lugs carrying the guide rollers on the gun loading rammer head when the latter was making a "withdrawing" stroke.

    This was cleared by filing and the other gun loading cages were examined for the same defect. Slight burring was found in some cases and was dressed away.

    No. 1 gun: On ramming shell the second time after the order "Load", the shell arrestor at the shell ring level jammed out and could not be freed before the first action.

    While steaming at high speed, large quantities of sea water entered "A" turret round the gun ports and through the joints of the gunhouse roof. It became necessary to rig canvas screens in the transverser space and bale the compartment.

  2. "B" Turret
No. 2 central ammunition hoist: Arrestor at shell ring level would not withdraw after ramming shell. It is impossible to strip this in place in the Mark II mounting, and the arrestor was removed complete. The axis pin of the pinion driving the inner tube of the arrestor had seized. There does not appear to be any effective means of lubricating this pin. The pin was drilled out and removed and the arrestor re-assembled. It was not, however, possible to replace the arrestor before action stations was ordered, because at this stage a defect developed in the hinge trays of the forward shell room as described below. This latter defect was taken in hand immediately in order to free the revolving shell ring and was completed a few minutes after action stations. It was not then considered advisable to proceed with replacing the arrestor.

Hinge trays at forward shell room fouled the locking bolt on the revolving shell ring: both trays being bent.

Saturday, 24thMay

During the early hours hydraulic pressure failed on the revolving shell ring ship control in "B" turret. This was due to the pressure supply to the turret from the starboard side of the ring main being isolated. The revolving shell ring ship control is fed from the starboard side only, and the non-return valves on the pressure main adjacent to the centre pivot prevent pressure being fed to the starboard side and the revolving shell ring ship control from the port side in the event of the former being isolated from the ring main. Similar conditions exist on the port side of "A" and the starboard side of "Y". It is considered essential that a cross connection be fitted in the shell handling room with two non-return valves so that the revolving shell ring ship control can be supplied from either side of the ring main.

B - Events during the First Action

The following defects developed in "A" turret:-

  1. "A" Turret
    On several occasions the shell ring rammers fouled the brackets on the hinge trays for No. 11 interlock. Shell could not be rammed until the bearing of the turret was changed. This also occurred in "Y" but did not prevent ramming.

    No. 1 gun only fired one salvo, due to the events described in A (i).

    After the second salvo, No. 24A interlock failed on No. 2 shell ring rammer. It was tripped after a short delay and thereafter assisted by hand.

    About halfway through the firing, the tappets operating the shell ring arrestor release gear on No. 4 rammer failed to release the arrestor. Subsequent examination has shown that the shaft carrying the levers operating these tappets had twisted. The rammer was kept in action by giving the tappets a heavy blow at each stroke.

    Shortly after this, a further defect occurred on No. 4 shell room rammer. When fully withdrawn the rammer failed to clear No. 7 interlock and the ring could not be locked. This was overcome by operating the gear with a pinch-bar at every stroke.

    Throughout the engagement the conditions in "A" shell handling room were very bad; water was pouring down from the upper part of the mounting. Only one drain is fitted and became choked; with the result that water accumulated and washed from side to side as the ship rolled. The streams above and floods below drenched the machinery and caused discomfort to the personnel. More drains should be fitted in the shell handling room and consideration given to a system of water catchment combined with improved drainage in the upper parts of the revolving structure. Every effort is being made to improve the pressure systems and further attempts will be made as soon as opportunity occurs to improve the mantlet weathering, but a certain amount of leaking is inevitable.

  2. "B" Turret
    No mechanical defects.

  3. "Y" Turret
The following defects occurred in "Y" turret:-

Salvo 11- No. 3 central ammunition hoist was raised with shell but no cordite; No. 25 interlock having failed to prevent this. The interlock was functioning correctly before the engagement. There has been no opportunity to investigate this. It is also reported that the reason no cordite had been rammed was that the indicator in the cordite handling room did not show that the cage had been raised after the previous ramming stroke. This caused the gun to miss salvoes 15 to 20.

Salvo 12- Front flashdoors of No. 2 gun loading cage failed to open and cage could not be loaded. Flashdoors on transfer tubes were working correctly and investigation showed that adjustment was required on the vertical rod operating the palm levers which open the gun loading cage doors. To make this adjustment, three-quarter inch thread had to be cut on the rod. This defect was put in hand after the engagement had been broken off and was completed by 1300. It would appear that the operating gear had been strained, possibly by the foreign matter in the flashdoor casing making the doors tight. The doors were free when tried in the course of making the repair. This caused the gun to miss salvo 14 onwards.

Salvo 20- Owing to the motion of the ship, a shell slid out of the port shell room and fouled the revolving shell ring while the latter was locked to the trunk and the turret was training. The hinge tray was severely buckled, putting the revolving shell ring out of action. The tray was removed, but on testing the ring it was found that No. 3 and 4 hinge trays of the starboard shell room had also been buckled and were fouling the ring. The cause of this is not yet known. The trays were removed and as the action had stopped by this time, No. 4 tray was dressed up and replaced. The ring was out of action until 0825.

C - Events subsequent to First Action

During the day in "A" turret, No. 1 central ammunition hoist shell arrestor was driven back with the intention of carrying on without it by ramming cautiously. The gun and cages were then loaded, but owing to the motion of the ship the round in the central ammunition hoist cage slid forward until its nose entered the arrestor, putting the hoist out of action again. Subsequent examination has shown that the anti-surging gear in this cage was stiff and consequently did not re-assert itself after ramming to traverser.

D - Events during the Second Action

"A" Turret

No. 1 gun fired only two salvoes owing to central ammunition hoist being out of action as described above in C, para 1. At salvo 9, No. 3 central ammunition hoist shell arrestor jammed out.

"B" and "Y" Turret

Clean shoot.

E - Events subsequent to Second Action

"A" Turret

No. 3 central ammunition hoist shell arrestor was removed complete from the hoist. Time did not allow of it being stripped and made good, but it was intended to use the hoist without it. The gun and cages were loaded in this manner.

F - Third Action

"A" Turret

First Salvo - Shell rammed short into No. 3 central ammunition hoist cage. In trying to remedy this a double ram was made, putting the shell ring out of action. The second shell was hauled back by tackle, clearing the ring. The base of the shell in the central ammunition hoist cage was jamming against the upper edge of the opening in the hoist. This could not be cleared as the central ammunition hoist control lever cold not be put to lower. After much stripping the trouble was located in a link in the control gear which was found to be out of line.

"B" Turret

Clean shoot.

G - General

With pressure being kept on shell room machinery for a long period, much water has accumulated in the shell rooms and bins. Suctions are fitted from 350-tomnm pumps only and these are not satisfactory for dealing with relatively small quantities of water. Drains are urgently required. It is suggested that a drain be fitted at each end of each shell room and larger drain holes be made in the bins; present drain holes being quite inadequate and easily choked.

The drains should be led to the inner bottom under the cordite handling room. Non-return valves and flash-seals could be fitted if considered necessary.

On passage to Rosyth after the action, two further hinge trays in "Y" shell handling room were buckled by fouling the revolving shell ring.

[Enclosure(IV)]

Exhibit A. Click to enlarge


Exhibit B. Click to enlarge

I stand corrected! Thats one hell of a shakedown cruise

Still had Hood been replaced with KGV then its far less likely that POW would have to turn away taking the A and B turrets out of arc etc (which from what I understand from the above is where Y turret had issues preventing it from firing when it was the only turret in arc - therefore the issue plaguing Y turret would not be as big an issue to the ships overall ability to engage.
 
Both ships were due to be delivered on 1st July 1940, which was 3½ years to the day after they were laid down, which in turn was the day after the 1930 London Treaty expired.

AFAIK the late delivery was due to late delivery of the 14" gun turrets, which in turn was due to the Admiralty changing the design from one armed with nine 15" to one armed with twelve 14" and then to one with ten 14". The delay being that the new turrets had to be designed before manufacturing could start.

It's not in the OP, but if they had stuck to twelve 14", both ships might have been completed a few months earlier, which would have given more time for PoW to work up and both ships time to sort out their turrets, because AFAIK designing the twin 14" turret took 6 months.
 
Top