Scapegoat: The Death of Prince of Wales and Repulse by Dr Martin Stephen Page B

that the hidden, unsuspected damage inflicted by such as shock could extend a significant way beyond the point of impact. It is possible that the explosion and downward pressure of the quadruple turret ripped a line out along the hull, effectively following a fault line caused by the dockyard hit. 10
    Armament
    Prince of Wales should have been the best-ever British battleship in terms of its anti-aircraft armament. The 5.25in dual-purpose secondary armament, housing in eight twin-turrets, was a good idea in theory. Most battleships, including Bismarck, had a four tier arrangement of main armament, anti-destroyer armament, heavy and light anti-aircraft armament. Guns that could be dual purpose, and throw a heavy enough shell to cripple a destroyer but still have a high enough rate of fire to be used against aircraft, saved weight that could be transferred to the other eternal two points of the designers’ triangle, propulsion and armour. The problem was that the twin 5.25in turrets did not work well enough: ‘There is little doubt that these guns (or perhaps more accurately their fire-control systems) were still not combat efficient.’ 11
    The turrets were cramped, and the guns were too heavy and slow to track to fulfill their anti-aircraft role. Designed for ten to twelve rounds per minute, seven to eight was more normal and all that could be attained. The lack of a fully-mechanized ammunition supply was a serious drag on rate of fire, crew having to transfer 80lb shells and their cordite charge manually from hoists to loading trays. Perhaps more importantly, the four directors that controlled the guns had major weaknesses. They were not tachometric (fully stabilized) and ‘… did little better than guess at the location of the aircraft they targeted.’ 12
    No gun is better than its director. The 14-in gun that sank Scharnhorst in 1943 was a defective weapons system of relatively light caliber that nevertheless benefited from highly accurate gunnery radar directing fire. It is a pity that the Admiralty’s decision to buy the outstanding foreign 40mm Bofors gun for anti-aircraft defence in 1939 came too late for more than one of them to be mounted on Prince of Wales (on her stern), or that the sacrifice of buying foreign was not extended to the outstanding American 5-inch dual-purpose gun, sometimes known as the 5in/38.
    It is often stated that the crews had no time to work up, anti-aircraft fire in particular needing practice targets that were simply not available on the way to Singapore. This is certainly true, and the aim of Prince of Wales ’s gunners does not seem to have been good, but when push came to shove, the much-vaunted secondary armament proved not fit for purpose. In fairness to the designers the loss of electrical power rendered half the turrets useless for much of the action.
    Nor were the multi-barrelled ‘pom-poms’ an antidote to Japanese air power. Essentially short-range weapons, they all too often took effect on a target after it had launched its load of munitions. Captain Tennant of Repulse , quoted in the following chapter, believed the weapons consistently shot behind their target – an ironic comment if true, as it was exactly the criticism made against Bismarck ’s anti-aircraft fire. The pom-pom’s ammunition also took badly to the tropical climate, which caused the round to separate from the casing before it could be fired. Bad ventilation on board the ship caused many problems, as discussed below, including an inability to store ammunition at temperate and humidity-levels that kept it serviceable.
    Power Supply
    The loss of electrical power played a crucial role in the sinking of Prince of Wales. Electrical power was provided by six turbine-driven dynamos and two diesel-driven generators for emergency power. It was realized too late to save Prince of Wales that turbine-driven generators in particular were very susceptible to battle damage. The loss of electrical power resulting from