Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby wadinga » Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:47 pm

Hello Alberto,

I do indeed consider you a friend and am very pleased we are mutual in this, however that doesn't mean we have to agree about everything. It is as a friend that I would like you to abandon your support for this campaign of trumped-up allegations of cowardice, lying, falsification of records and engage in genuine fair-minded research and analysis again. I would also ask you to stop misrepresenting the report of "a mast" by Busch as identification of Suffolk.

I don't think it is partisan to call Brinkmann's turn away "panicking". Torpedoes fired by Hood would have to have been fired at c 24,000 yds to have reached the vicinity of PG when the alarm, one of several spurious alarms that morning, was given. Brinkmann's over-reaction disrupted the flagship as well. Vizeadmiral Schmundt whilst calling PG's action in staying in the line, "courageous" then immediately proceeds to why they were not approved and a bad idea. He particularly outlines the damaging effect of a heavy calibre hit on this "poorly armoured vessel". PG was of course far better armoured and had a much bigger displacement than the County class cruisers. How's that for applying the same even-handed parameters to British and German alike? :angel:

Roger Backhouse as Pound's predecessor (as 1st Sea Lord- also died of a brain tumour :shock: ) features large in Robin Brodhurst's Churchill's Anchor which I thoroughly recommend for purchase. He says this of your favourite personnel assessor: "When C-in-C of the Home Fleet he was an even worse centralizer than Pound, and his chief of staff, Bertie Ramsay one of the Royal Navy's most gifted officers, remonstrated with him. Ramsay was told by Backhouse that he could not change his habits and, if he didn't like them he (Ramsay) had better go. Ramsay resigned and was placed on the retired list. Happily he was recalled by Pound in September 1939 as Vice-Admiral, Dover......." Errr, yes that is the Bertie Ramsay who masterminded, along with his trusted at-sea representative Frederic Wake-Walker, the successful extraction of the BEF from the jaws of Doom at Dunkirk. And later went on to mastermind Operation Neptune the naval element of Overlord using the landing craft his trusted former subordinate had overseen the construction of.

So I think we can all safely forget all about Roger Backhouse's assessment (do you agree?), unless someone discovers he was a actually a Nazi mole trying to destroy the careers of not one, but two of the Royal Navy's most outstanding WWII officers :cool: :dance:

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:56 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

Point 17. - It was the intention of the Vice-Admiral Commanding, Battle Cruiser Squadron, that the Hood and Prince of Wales should engage the Bismarck, leaving the Prinz Eugen to the cruisers, but the Rear-Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron, was not aware that the battlecruiser force was so near; the Norfolk and Suffolk, therefore, shadowing from the eastward and northward respectively at a range of about 15 miles, were not in a position to engage the Prinz Eugen who was now stationed ahead of the Bismarck on a course of 240°.


I see your point now, ... and basically it only confirms, ... once again to me, ... my perception that the point 17 was very smartly written by Adm Tovey on his dispatches only to use an intermediate described timing situation occurred while the enemy was still on course 240°, ... between point 16 timings and point 18 timings at 05.35, ... to link and connect it to an after 05:35 situation and decision that CS1 Squadron Commander, ... namely RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker on board the HMS Norfolk, ... could have taken only after 05:41, ... when he first saw and identified the enemy and their relative positions with Prinz Eugen ahead of the Bismarck, ... so, a very different situation compared to what Suffolk was transmitting all night long by radio messages.

A very smart way to try to justify a later on not existing unawareness, ... by linking it to a much earlier time situation, ... with another event occurred around 2 hours after when the Officer was fully aware of BC1 presence, ... but did not execute something he should have done ( according to Adm Tovey point 17 statement ), ... like taking care of the Prinz Eugen, ... because of the position of the German cruiser now being discovered ahead of the Bismarck and not following her as thought until that moment.

Smart, ... very smart, ... unfortunately very misleading to say the least, ... and of course incorrect and unfair.

Of course at around 3 am that night on Norfolk they did not know yet about BC1 presence, ... since as soon as they saw something, ... they thought immediately it was the enemy, ... and they sailed away 15 sea miles on the opposite direction enlarging the distance at full speed.

Surely soon after 5 am that morning they were fully aware of BC1 presence since Wake-Walker not only stated so, ... but also declared he was aware of the BC1 intentions and only did not know the timing of their closing the enemy for the engagement to occur, ... as everybody can listen on his recorded interview you provided the link to.

So linking and mixing up those 2 different situations and timings like Adm Tovey according to your opinion did with point 17, ... self explains the real intent of who did it providing an incorrect justification for a missed action.

Anyway, ... RearAdm Wake-WAlker recorded interview is now available for everybody to read and understand it, ... just like the point 17 on Adm Tovey dispatches, ... and it does not take much to realize that they do not state the same story.

In this regard everybody can compare the above point 17 by Adm Tovey with the below WW statements from his interview :

....
Soon after 5 am on the morning of the 24th, smoke was seen fine on the port bow of the Norfolk, this we knew must be the Hood and the Prince of Wales, whom we were expecting to intercept the enemy before long, although we did not know exactly at what time they would do so.
Soon afterward the Norfolk sighted the enemy herself the first time since the evening before and at the same time the Hood and Prince of Wales became fairly visible closing on the enemy.
The enemy cruiser was ahead of the enemy battleship.
Very soon the Hood opened fire, …


Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1535
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:30 pm

@Wadinga:
Hi Sean,
many thanks for your nice words re. our friendship, that, from my side, is growing up more and more, despite we don't meet since years, right by discussing this topic in a very hot but fair, clear and open way (perhaps too open, sometimes....).
So said, back to business..... :wink:

you wrote: "I would also ask you to stop misrepresenting the report of "a mast" by Busch as identification of Suffolk."

I cannot agree: Busch gives 3 almost perfect bearings for the enemies surrounding PG (157° , 96° and 15°), and there is no way that the "mast" on bearing 15° is a trawler: it ..."must be" ... :wink: Suffolk, if we don't want to admit that, between the German squadron and HMS Suffolk, a trawler was peacefully sailing.....


you wrote: "I don't think it is partisan to call Brinkmann's turn away "panicking....Brinkmann's over-reaction disrupted the flagship as well....."

Well, then I don't think it is partisan to call Leach's turn away "panicking", immediately after a 15" shell passed through his bridge. Leach's decision disrupted PoW gunnery as well, making McMullen "furious".
We may think both "panicked", but I think we can only say that Leach took a weighted debatable (without hindsight) decision as well as Brinkmann raised a false alarm (possibly not realizing in the heat of action that a torpedo could not reach him. However there were airplanes around and/or there could have been British submarines, and in the doubt he may have trusted the GHG :think: ). Brinkmann turned away from "torpedoes" (and from the enemy) 1 minute later than Bismarck, so IMO panic is not the right word.


you wrote: "how's that for applying the same even-handed parameters to British and German alike?"

Here I totally disagree and I cannot see your point.
PG, despite being more heavily armored, had no immunity against 14" or 15" shells, so her armor could just activate more large caliber fuzes than County class vessels one (and due to his larger hull, sink more slowly).
PG was opposed to 2 battleships that could (and actually had already split their fire between BS and PG, before she was ordered to engage). Norfolk and Suffolk were 2 of them and, with BC1 in sight, IMO they would have never been targeted by Bismarck 15" guns, not even after Hood explosion, at least until PoW was present.
All British ships, once damaged (but not blown up like Hood, of course.... :( ), could receive help from other units (e.g. the destroyers), while Brinkmann was well aware that any minor damage to his ship could result in a complete disaster.

Therefore, the situation of W-W closing with his 2 cruisers after 5:16 was (in theory) far, far less dangerous than Brinkmann staying in the line and engaging BC1.


you wrote: "So I think we can all safely forget all about Roger Backhouse's assessment "

I agree that we should stop celebrate (you) or attack (me) personally Wake-Walker (avoiding to attack or celebrate Roger Backhouse or Bertie Ramsay), looking into his previous or following achievements (you) / faults (me): I have my opinion, you have a different one.
Let's stay to what W-W did during this mission and what he declared afterwards, are you ok with this approach ?


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Herr Nilsson » Wed Sep 13, 2017 7:54 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Point 17. - It was the intention of the Vice-Admiral Commanding, Battle Cruiser Squadron, that the Hood and Prince of Wales should engage the Bismarck, leaving the Prinz Eugen to the cruisers, but the Rear-Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron, was not aware that the battlecruiser force was so near; the Norfolk and Suffolk, therefore, shadowing from the eastward and northward respectively at a range of about 15 miles, were not in a position to engage the Prinz Eugen who was now stationed ahead of the Bismarck on a course of 240°.


...

Anyway, ... RearAdm Wake-WAlker recorded interview is now available for everybody to read and understand it, ... just like the point 17 on Adm Tovey dispatches, ... and it does not take much to realize that they do not state the same story.

..

....
Soon after 5 am on the morning of the 24th, smoke was seen fine on the port bow of the Norfolk, this we knew must be the Hood and the Prince of Wales, whom we were expecting to intercept the enemy before long, although we did not know exactly at what time they would do so.
Soon afterward the Norfolk sighted the enemy herself the first time since the evening before and at the same time the Hood and Prince of Wales became fairly visible closing on the enemy.
The enemy cruiser was ahead of the enemy battleship.
Very soon the Hood opened fire, …




Yes, exactly. Point 17 and the passage from the interview are entirely unrelated.
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:05 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you wrote :

Yes, exactly. Point 17 and the passage from the interview are entirely unrelated.


I am glad about your opinion now.

Consequently Adm Tovey point 17 is completely misleading the situation described and totally unrelated to the real events sequence that are correctly described by RearAdm Wake-Walker recorded interview.

@ Wadinga,

Sean, did you get the point now ? As I asked you days ago, ... do you agree now ?

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 2985
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby dunmunro » Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:33 pm

wadinga wrote:Hello All,

So nobody has the Icarus message then. Pity.

H


It is not recorded in the Admiralty War Diary.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 2985
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby dunmunro » Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:05 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

Norfolk top speed was 31,5 knots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Norfolk_(78)

If you listen again to WW recorded interview you will notice that he declared is awareness of the BC1 presence ( we knew they must be ) and also to know their intentions, ... only he did not know when the BC1 warships were going to close on the enemy.

So, he was aware of them and their intentions, ... and this is not what Adm Tovey stated on point 17.

Please confirm ...

Bye Antonio :D


I was going to let this go, but Norfolk's full load maximum speed was probably about 31 knots with a clean bottom and refitted machinery. In 1930 Norfolk performed well during her full power trials recording 81,800shp and 32.1 knots at 12,190 tons and 32.9 knots at 9800 tons. Unfortunately by 1937 Norfolk's standard displacement had increased to 10400 tons and her full load displacement had increased considerably and was exceeding 14000 tons at full load by May 1941. Additionally, she was 7 months out of dock (last dry dock was early November 1940) and bottom fouling alone would cut about .5 knots from her maximum speed, not to mention 7 months wear and tear on her machinery so her maximum speed on 24 May 1941 was probably ~30.5 knots.
(data mainly from R&R, County Class Cruisers)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1535
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:26 am

Dunmunro wrote: "her (Norfolk) maximum speed on 24 May 1941 was probably ~30.5 knots."

Hi Duncan,
thanks for the info, however, on May 24, all ships were consistently running faster than their max theoretical speed, due to water temperature AND due to the exceptional circumstances (e.g. we all know that safeties were ignored on Hood to run at 29 knots when the ship machinery was badly worn out and the analysis of Bismarck photos taken from PG shows how BS was largely exceeding 30 knots). Therefore Norfolk could possibly achieve (under exceptional circumstances) even 32 knots.

However we have NO evidence of any order given by W-W to raise to full speed, not even from the several witnesses at the boards of inquiry (do you have? :negative:). However, during the night, Norfolk had been running for 2 consecutive hours at an average speed of 30,2 knots (see her log, with speed and RPM), in a timeframe when there was no special need to "run" and no order for "full speed" had been given either.

Why was Norfolk running slower (even if a bit slower, 30knots) during the critical minutes from 5:16 till 6:00 ?

Please note that just running at 30,5 knots (as you suggest) Norfolk could have been at 9.2 sm from Bismarck at 6:00 as per blue mark on the most recent Antonio's battlemap, published on our article in "Storia Militare" (instead of my calculation of 8,7 sm done assuming a speed of 31.5 knots, see orange mark).

Norfolk_straight_course_2.jpg
Norfolk_straight_course_2.jpg (90.58 KiB) Viewed 59 times

Therefore Norfolk could well be within effective gun range in any case, or at least try to do so.... but W-W decided just to....wait and watch, even turning away at 5:41, immediately after sighting the enemy, loosing range. :oops:


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:23 am

Hello everybody,

@ all,

back to RearAdm Wake-Walker very interesting recorded interview, we can now correlate his declared full awareness about BC1 presence to his June 4th, 1941 report inputs at page 88 :

At 04:45 a report was received from Icarus, giving us the first intimation I had of the Battle Cruiser force being in the vicinity.


... and to the Battle Summary number 5 report :

Wake-Walker_realizing_Holland_position.jpg
Wake-Walker_realizing_Holland_position.jpg (94.98 KiB) Viewed 56 times


As everybody can read, ... even not having the original text of the Icarus sent radio message at 04:45, ... we can realize its content by reading above the Battle Summary number 5 inputs, ... which state that Icarus was communicating her plus the Achates position, plus probably the speed and course, ... and very likely the projected time needed to rejoin the BC1 warships, ... since very likely BC1 was the one the HMS Icarus radio message was sent to.


Electra_0700_04.jpeg
Electra_0700_04.jpeg (88 KiB) Viewed 56 times


Only knowing those information and the fact that those destroyers were the escort of BC1 warships, ... and most likely the radio message was sent from Icarus to BC1 as said, ... only knowing those inputs RearAdm Wake-Walker could have realized at 04:45 that morning, ... that the BC1 warships were on Norfolk vicinity as he wrote himself on his report, ... and consequently realized they must have been the smoke they saw on Norfolk port bow at 05:16.

Very simple ... just as Russell Grenfell wrote on his book too, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 824
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby wadinga » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:02 am

Hello Duncan,

You note:
It is not recorded in the Admiralty War Diary.


In the PRO was a summary of conclusions by Tovey regarding W/T usage during the chase. He notes that Suffolk's initial sighting reports were only picked up by some other ships in the vicinity and not by any shore stations. I note that many of the messages are relayed by Iceland shore station, and it seems to me that the collated war diary uses mainly their records. Since Suffolk transmissions were integral to the story they would have been added subsequently. If Icarus' transmission was only received by CS1 and not by shore it would not appear in the listing. (Unless evil W-W made it up as part of his alibi :shock: )

Hello Antonio,
and very likely the projected time needed to rejoin the BC1 warships
once again you put your own conclusions based on hindsight into the mouths of those who were there and didn't know what you know. How could Icarus' commander possibly know when he would rejoin BC? He had no idea where Holland had gone after his ship was deployed north. He probably chose a course based on Suffolk's reports. Not until 05:41 did anyone know where Holland was. Not Lt Cdr Maud , not Rear Admiral Wake-Walker. In the event Icarus reached BC1's position about 07:30, but only because Hood was lying on the bottom of the sea and had been stopped dead for 90 minutes. Icarus and Achates were always 45 miles or 90 minutes' hard steaming NE of the action and if Hood had survived and kept going SW they would never have caught up. (A stern chase is a long chase).

There can ben nothing in the Icarus message to make Wake-Walker associate the distant smoke on his port bow with destroyers 45 miles astern of him.

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:44 am

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

you wrote :

There can be nothing in the Icarus message to make Wake-Walker associate the distant smoke on his port bow with destroyers 45 miles astern of him.


Once again you put out your own conclusions based on your " side taken hooligan " approach rather than try to provide value add on this discussion, ... demonstrating that your only intention is to try to deny any logical conclusion you do not like.

Anyway, since very evidently you disagree with my logical deduction, ... do you mind to provide now to us all your opinion on the logical thought process that enabled Rear Admiral Wake-Walker to release those officially available statements :

1) At 04:45 a report was received from Icarus, giving us the first intimation I had of the Battle Cruiser force being in the vicinity.

2) Soon after 5 am on the morning of the 24th, smoke was seen fine on the port bow of the Norfolk, this we knew must be the Hood and the Prince of Wales, whom we were expecting to intercept the enemy before long, ...

In particular, according to you :

A ) From which input WW had this first intimation of BC1 being in the vicinity of Norfolk ?

B ) In which way he knew they " must be " Hood and PoW ?

C ) How come he was expecting they were going to intercept the enemy ?

In this way you can cooperate putting more light on those events, ... that are clear enough now thanking WW statements, ... and only need to be better correlated to their real inputs, ... if we can ... :wink:

I have provided my opinion above, ... I wait for your one now Sean, ...

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 2985
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby dunmunro » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:02 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "her (Norfolk) maximum speed on 24 May 1941 was probably ~30.5 knots."

Hi Duncan,
thanks for the info, however, on May 24, all ships were consistently running faster than their max theoretical speed, due to water temperature AND due to the exceptional circumstances (e.g. we all know that safeties were ignored on Hood to run at 29 knots when the ship machinery was badly worn out and the analysis of Bismarck photos taken from PG shows how BS was largely exceeding 30 knots). Therefore Norfolk could possibly achieve (under exceptional circumstances) even 32 knots.

However we have NO evidence of any order given by W-W to raise to full speed, not even from the several witnesses at the boards of inquiry (do you have? :negative:). However, during the night, Norfolk had been running for 2 consecutive hours at an average speed of 30,2 knots (see her log, with speed and RPM), in a timeframe when there was no special need to "run" and no order for "full speed" had been given either.

Why was Norfolk running slower (even if a bit slower, 30knots) during the critical minutes from 5:16 till 6:00 ?

Please note that just running at 30,5 knots (as you suggest) Norfolk could have been at 9.2 sm from Bismarck at 6:00 as per blue mark on the most recent Antonio's battlemap, published on our article in "Storia Militare" (instead of my calculation of 8,7 sm done assuming a speed of 31.5 knots, see orange mark).

Norfolk_straight_course_2.jpg

Therefore Norfolk could well be within effective gun range in any case, or at least try to do so.... but W-W decided just to....wait and watch, even turning away at 5:41, immediately after sighting the enemy, loosing range. :oops:


Bye, Alberto


Hood ran full power trials in March 1941 after a short refit and bottom cleaning. She achieved 28.8 knots with paravanes streamed which equals about 29.5 knots clean, so Hood was not straining her engines to make 29 knots; OTOH PoW was pushing her engines hard to keep up.

Norfolk was probably making nearly full power when she recorded 30.2 knots.

If Norfolk had closed to 9nm she would probably have been sunk by Bismarck. She could not begin to close until Bismarck was engaged by Holland. Norfolk did not turn away although Suffolk did. When W-W positively identified BC1 it seemed very likely that Lutjens would identify BC1 as well and turn north at full speed to escape the trap. W-W probably ordered full power at ~0552 when Hood opened fire but Norfolk's log shows her running at 30 knots from 0400 to 0600 so she had little speed in hand over what she was already doing.

Suffolk ran full power trials in mid March 1941 after a lengthy refit, so in May 1941 she was only 2 or 3 months out of dock with a relatively clean bottom.
Last edited by dunmunro on Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Herr Nilsson » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:02 am

@Alberto,

Your map and therefore your calculation is clearly wrong. Nice try.

@Antonio

I still see no contradiction, but anyway, the whole dicussion about this isn't decisive at all. I think you're absolutely right when you wrote:

In this regard everybody can compare the above point 17 by Adm Tovey with the below WW statements from his interview
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1535
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:50 am

Dunmunro wrote: "If Norfolk had closed to 9nm she would probably have been sunk by Bismarck."

Hi Duncan,
not at all, as demonstrated by Suffolk running at 9 sm (176 hectometers as per F.O.Busch or 18.000 yards as per Ellis autobiography) at around 5:30, before her turn away) and not being targeted.
Lutjens had to face two battleships (even before their clear identification, the 2 unknown ships were approaching at a rate and inclination that left few doubt as per their intentions and identity) and would have never wasted 15" ammunition to fire at the 2 "known" cruisers approaching at a much slower rate.


you wrote: "Norfolk did not turn away"

She just turned on a parallel course, loosing precious range, that for me is "turning away" from battle :negative:


you wrote: "W-W probably ordered full power at ~0552 "

Just speculation, such an order was neither logged, nor referred by any witness and the ship was running slower than during the night, when she was in a "calm" period. :oops:


I'm anyway ready to accept your 30.5 knots as max speed for Norfolk, that would put Norfolk anyway at 9.2 sm from enemy (see the blue mark), within effective gun range as per Antonio's last published battlemap (that is the only one available, showing all ships together, respecting their reported courses, their cross-bearings and fitting the vast majority of evidences, in the absence of any credible alternative one.... Of course, if anybody still wants to rely on the demonstrated incorrectly drawn Pinchin's Plot, the distance would be different :lol: )

Norfolk_straight_course_2.jpg
Norfolk_straight_course_2.jpg (90.58 KiB) Viewed 31 times


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:00 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr NIlsson,

I see and I have no problems to keep our own different way to see it, as you wrote the whole discussion about this isn't decisive at all.

What is decisive now is to have demonstrated and determined for good that the Adm Tovey point 17 and WW declarations about his battle approach awareness are 2 complete different things as everybody can easily read and verify now.

I am sure everybody here in remember that this was my point since the very beginning of this all discussion back on the Articles of War thread on the summer of 2013.

After point 19, ... also the point 17 now has been clarified well enough, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests