Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2757
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:20 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga posted Rowell: "Bismarck opened fire half a minute after the Prince of Wales, before doing so turning to open her "A" arcs. "
I will respect Mr.Jurens request and I will therefore avoid to say what I have in mind about Mr.Wadinga, who is evidently not respecting Mr.Jurens request in his above post. The Rowell's statement is simply totally wrong as:
1) Bismarck opened fire 2 to 3 minutes after PoW as per official German documents and accounts (this has been debated at length)
2) I respectfully point out to Mr.Wadinga that changing course from 220° to 270° (as per PG film) means (slightly) to close the arcs, not to open them.... On 220° the bearing of PoW is 20° forward of the beam, on 270° it is 30° aft of the beam. Is this opening arcs ? I would say NO.



Re. photo NH69729, I simply sat that it is impossible to determine the exact Bismarck course from the image alone: it depends on: PG course (hasn't Mr.Wadinga noticed that PG is not on 270° after 6:07 ?) and on the position of PG in her track when the photo was taken (therefore, it depends on the exact timing of the photo).
IMHO, the most probable course, looking at the photo alone, at the railings of PG, at the Bismarck silhouette, is 200° and the photo has been taken just after PG crossed BS future course, but it can be 180° or 220° as well: only the analysis of ALL the other photos + the tracks and the speeds of the ships will hopefully provide an answer. 220° course looks the most logical, as the mean course of Germans after avoiding maneuvers was ALWAYS 220°. Of course any different determined course will be an interesting step forward, but will affect in a very limited way the overall battle reconstruction... :negative:

As a matter of fact, the purpose of this thread is to determine exactly the course of Bismarck after 6:06, after her course before 6:03 has now been fixed for everybody, except for Mr.Wadinga (who based his speculation on no evidence): from 5:52 till 6:03 she was on 220°, as per the irrefutable PoW salvo plot and her rnage closure rate vs PG) while during the PG film (6:03:50 till 6:05:50 as per Antonio's last proposal) she was perfectly parallel to PG until the last seconds of the film (see Antonio demonstration that nobody was able/willing to question: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335#p81065), therefore she was on 270°.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by dunmunro » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:38 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:20 am
Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Bismarck opened fire half a minute after the Prince of Wales, before doing so turning to open her "A" arcs. "
I will respect Mr.Jurens request and avoid to say what I have in mind about Mr.Wadinga, who is evidently not respecting Mr.Jurens request in his above post. The Rowell's statement is simply totally wrong as:
1) Bismarck opened fire 2 to 3 minutes after PoW as per official German documents and accounts (this has been debated at length)
The overwhelming weight of evidence supports Bismarck opening fire within one minute of Hood.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:08 am

Hello everybody,

whoever wants to talk about a different subject than this thread argument is kindly requested to go on the proper thread ( if available ) or to open a new one following the forum rules.

Back on this thread here a summary map correctly re-positioning the PG film as for the last timing evaluations between 06:03 and 50 seconds and 06:05 and 43 seconds. As we agreed there are of course +/- 5 seconds tolerances.
DS_PG_film_Nov_2018.jpg
DS_PG_film_Nov_2018.jpg (51.58 KiB) Viewed 307 times
Now it is possible following both the above map as well as the PG film to re-evaluate the timing of the last PoW local control falling shells as well as the timing of the Bismarck photos ( both Bundesarchiv or NH center from Nr. 11 to 16 on my map ) in line with the film new time slot positioning.

http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... trait2.htm

At the end of the PG film the Bismarck as well as the Prinz Eugen were already turning to port.

This is clearly what the Bismarck last frames on the PG film containing the photo NH 69727 ( Nr 16 on my map ) are showing and we can evaluate this photo being taken some seconds before the PG film sequence ended so at 06:05 and 30 seconds more or less.

I just look at my 2005 map and I had positioned that photo exactly there, ... what a luck ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:47 pm

Hello everybody,

referencing my 2005 battle map :

http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... trait2.htm

Now that we have established and fixed the PG film and the photo Nr. 16 ( the NH 69727 ) at 06:05 and 30 seconds battle time, ... we can move on and analyze the 3rd section of the Bismarck track that on my article was associated to the photos Nr. 17, 18, 19 and 20.

My_map_from_0606_until_0609.jpg
My_map_from_0606_until_0609.jpg (42.09 KiB) Viewed 263 times

The 3rd section of the Bismarck track under analysis goes from 06:06 until 06:09 battle time, ... and we have the original Prinz Eugen track to be associated to it :

Prinz_Eugen_Original_track_0601_0610.jpg
Prinz_Eugen_Original_track_0601_0610.jpg (24.99 KiB) Viewed 263 times

Now my question to everybody is : how many photos do you have on top of the 4 pics ( 17, 18, 19 and 20 here above ) I have attached to my article, ... to be associated to that Bismarck track 3rd period/section of the battle from 06:06 until 06:09 as said ?


Thanks for the cooperation, .... Bye Antonio
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 )

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by northcape » Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:57 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:08 am


Back on this thread here a summary map correctly re-positioning the PG film as for the last timing evaluations between 06:03 and 50 seconds and 06:05 and 43 seconds. As we agreed there are of course +/- 5 seconds tolerances.
Dejavu:

This misunderstanding is your big problem.

You did not "correctly position" the PG film or the PG map or anything, so you cannot use it as as starting point for serious (=robust) interpretation of anything else.

You did propose a theory on how to correlate untimed snippets of film of unknown frame rate and and untimed photos with a track map of low accuracy/low certainty. Please provide the independent information which allows you to verify your theory/correlation, which in turn allows you to state that it is "correct". Thank you in advance.

If not able, please refrain from using the word "correctly". It gives a wrong impression.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:09 pm

Hello everybody,

here the low competence and knowledge forum members writing on this forum can start reading something useful before writing their nonsense just causing a waste of time to the others willing to work on improving what everybody else already knows since many years.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=240#p68482

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=240#p68475

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=240#p68500

This is the last kind help I will provide, ... as a sign of indulgence, ... and a peaceful approach.

Bye Antonio
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 )

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by northcape » Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:14 am

The links you provide just show a track maps with times on it.

I'm sorry I still don't see the independent proof of your correlation of film/photos with the track maps. Remember, your correlation of photos/film with the track maps is a reconstruction/theory - so if you want to state that it is "correct" you need some independent proof.

This maybe appears picky, but it is simply wrong that your correlation is "correct" / the "truth". It is what it is - one of many approaches to reconstruct a detailed map (it is however still my view that all the data we have simply do not allow to establish a robust AND accurate map as it is tried).

Nonetheless, as long as you don't have independent proofs you simply cannot make any statement on the "correctness" of the map. In short, you are deducing a map from assumptions also based on photos/films, and then use this map and photos to validate the map. It is a short circuit.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:44 am

Hello everybody,

evidently someone is having hard time to realize that as I have started this thread, everything is mainly based on the reciprocal tracks geometry between the Prinz Eugen official track and the PoW official track and it is enough to read the first page of this thread to realize it.

Mathematics, geometry and trigonometry are scientific laws and are more than enough independent proof.

The Bismarck course is based on the relative analysis and relative comparison with the Prinz Eugen track, her main guns/turrets rotation toward the target Hood or PoW is the confirmation of the correct positioning of the PG film and the photos.

It is not a difficult or complicated work to do since there were only 3 change of course done by the Bismarck during the battle, ... while the Prinz Eugen turned several times and we have a perfect timing correlation with her track already available, ... and the same goes for the PoW, ... so it is fairly easy job to be done.

Paul Schmalenbach already did it in this way for his 1978 map doing exactly this process for the German squadron tracks as everybody can read on his map caption, ... and as we can all see the result can only be that one.

Now, starting from that Schmalenbach 1978 map, ... thru the 1980 Dr. J. Rohwer one adding the correct BC1 tracks, ... and finally my 2005 evolution, ... we can realize a more detailed and defined one that will not be so different from those 2, ... just a bit better.

Once you have the Prinz Eugen original track, the PoW track, the relative bearings, the PG film and all, ... I mean all, ... the available photos, ... the result can only be that one.

As simple as that, ... and always with the due tolerances.

Bye Antonio
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: 1599
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:18 pm

Hello Northcape ,

You are quite correct to keep explaining the investigative process of using evidence to generate a speculation, which might then be proved by independent evidence.

However when you read
It is not a difficult or complicated work to do since there were only 3 change of course done by the Bismarck during the battle

Despite a claim of using

Mathematics, geometry and trigonometry are scientific laws and are more than enough independent proof.

You can see that for a very, very few there is no difference between assumptions, assertions and reality.

There is no record of Bismarck's course whatsoever, no one knows how many course changes Bismarck made. Speculation of three course changes is just that. Prinz Eugen's KTB says she made three turns.


We now have a blown-up segment of Prinz Eugen's track Prinz_Eugen_Original_track_0601_0610.jpg (thanks Antonio) to emphasise just how useless these manoeuvres would be for escaping imaginary torpedoes from whichever of the confused orientations it is suggested they might have come. This is constant zigzagging with sharp turns at mere one minute intervals whose only object can be to throw out the enemy's gunnery. Yet nobody is shooting at PG at this recorded time.


So let's do some speculating of our own. :D

Quite clearly the times recorded are simply wrong. This sequence is from the time when Hood was shooting at PG, ten minutes before the times recorded and she was manoeuvring to avoid being hit. Nobody dodging torpedoes assumes he is safe after 60 seconds and then changes his mind and reverts to course then immediately decides he is wrong, no longer safe and must repeat the evolution. Although Jasper speaks of three turns there are four changes of course in this segment alone, and the gunnery officer said it was only the last that put PoW beyond the traverse of the forward director. But if we count the turn to starboard and the compensating turn to port as one turn, there are only two turns here and the third is the violent and extreme turn of more than 90 degrees and compensation recorded on the Gefechtskizze between 06:15 and 06:20 which certainly stopped Jasper seeing the target. Shifting the times by ten minutes puts this sequence between 06:05 and 06:10.


No doubt some self-professed Professor of Mathematics and geometry will suggest than with PG on 280T exactly as depicted, the forward armament would not bear, but is that true if PG had been near where PoW was targeting, not at 06:07 but at 05:57? Slide the whole Gefechtskizze back up 220T's reciprocal and the whole picture changes. And the muddle over poor Reimann starts to make sense, he has been required to assimilate his ranges, closure and opening rates and reaching distance and his actions on the faulty Gefechtsskizze. No wonder none of the ranges make sense.

Comments, but not insults, welcome.
All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2757
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:28 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote (my underlined):
"So let's do some speculating of our own. :D Quite clearly the times recorded are simply wrong. This sequence is from the time when Hood was shooting at PG, ten minutes before the times recorded and she was manoeuvring to avoid being hit. ... Shifting the times by ten minutes puts this sequence between 06:05 and 06:10 (?)... Slide the whole Gefechtskizze back up 220T's reciprocal and the whole picture changes.... Comments, but not insults, welcome."
Don't worry: no comment is possible to (fairly admitted) "own speculations", invented maneuvers (never recorded in any place), "clear" conclusions (based on nothing solid), "shifting" of (cherry-picked) officially recorded times (by 10 ! minutes), "sliding" of official tracks....

No surprise the guy will never be able to present his alternative battlemap using such "assumptions", while respecting available evidences.

Anyone else here will "comment" on Mr.Wadinga's "theory" ? Anyone (very bravely) feels like supporting him ? :negative:


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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:38 pm

Hello Alberto,

I would say you and Antonio have done all the things you accuse me of except I have called no-one liar, perjurer or coward purely on the basis of my speculations.

On the Gefechtsskizze as a trustworthy official document:
the Prinz Eugen "Gefechtsskizze" submitted by Prinz Eugen ( Kpt Brinkmann ) to Vize-Adm Hubert Schmundt has been cause of a lot of troubles for Kpt H. Brinkmann.

Hans Henning von Schulz on 2009 confirmed it to me during the interview I had with him in Salzburg for several hours, same did Otto Schlenzka ( PG A/A gunnery port side ) a year before in Kiel.

Von Schulz was the responsible designed by Brinkmann to respond to all Schmundt request as well as re-constructing the Bismarck war diary.

Schmundt declared the Prinz Eugen " Gefechtsskizze " useless and wortheless to measure Prinz Eugen versus enemy distance on his own letter of June 16th, 1941
It's very useful to have the benefit of Antonio's interviews with these PG veterans.

I wonder whether Antonio has identified the location of the photographer of the famous but underexposed "Night Shot" he calls picture 16. I have completely changed my opinion about this, and now consider it includes in its foreground the forward starboard 4.1" mount in its stowed, forward pointing position. I presume all of the port mounts have been engaged with the enemy and point outboard, but the starboard mounts have seen no action. The after two other mounts apparently always stow facing aft. So we look across to Bismarck from perhaps 45 degrees on her starboard bow, and we are looking perhaps 45 degrees aft of abeam thus on Prinz Eugen's starboard quarter. The ships are still at 90 degrees to one another, a situation which occurs nowhere on Antonio's speculative map.

I would like to commend you on your control in your comments. However there are no "invented manoeuvres the Gefechtsskizze track is the same as it ever was, merely shifted in time and therefore space. I am disappointed you have not tried to explain, based on your naval experience, why zigzagging at one minute intervals is a sensible technique to avoid torpedoes coming from anywhere. Especially imaginary torpedoes. You have also not addressed whether you think Bismarck and Prinz Eugen are at right angles or not. I have included Antonio's opinion, what is your?

All the best

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

Bill Jurens
Supporter
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens » Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:42 pm

O.K. I'll jump in on neither side.

I am loath to dismiss Wandinga' hypothesis out of hand. If we do reject it -- and it may be entirely reasonable to do so -- then that rejection should be based upon very specific criticisms, based on a more Socratic technique.

In that regard, I think it might be useful at this time to back-track a bit and establish a few 'facts' upon which all parties can agree. These would include, but not be limited to, facts such as "four ships were involved in the action", "The action occurred on 24 May 1941", "The course of Hood and Prince of Wales was xxx degrees, speed yyy prior to opening fire", etc. Once this fundamental foundation of agreed upon 'facts' (which, incidentally, might still be in error) has been established, then we can proceed by examining to what degree more controversial details, e.g. Bismarck turned to course 'kkk" at time zzz", can be safely added to the foundation.

So far as a specific track chart might be concerned, I would begin by laying the initial foundations suggesting the following 'facts' as commonly accepted.

a) Bismarck and Prinz Eugen's course and speed well prior to the action, e.g. at 0530.
b) Hood and Prince of Wales course and speed well prior to the action, e.g. at 0530.

(It will be noted that specific figures are not quoted here, as it would be premature to consider them as 'commonly accepted'.)

Once a) and b) can be agreed upon, then we might append 'c)', which might revolve around agreement as to the relative distances and bearings at that particular time. There will, of course, be various points at which various parties disagree. At those points, each party involved can bring forth evidence in support of their particular position and, within civil limits, point out where the opposing arguments might be in error. Hopefully, using a procedure similar to this one, i.e. by proceeding in a step-by-step process, we can arrive at a consensus and move forward in the process. At least we might be able to identify points where alternative reconstructions appear to be irreconcilable. Basically, we might proceed more productively by first concentrating upon 'facts' upon which we can all agree, only afterwards resolving issues upon which we (apparently) don't.

This represents, to be sure, a long and tedious process. In that regard, it's a bit like employing the scientific method, which some have described as being like an enormous unstoppable bulldozer. Very heavy, very slow, but -- in the absence of any other tool -- capable of moving mountains. This is, more-or-less, how the legal system works. So, at least philosophically, we slowly proceed to transform what sometimes appears to be more like a bar-fight into the courtroom.

Bill Jurens

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by northcape » Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:35 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:44 am

Mathematics, geometry and trigonometry are scientific laws and are more than enough independent proof.

..........


As simple as that, ... and always with the due tolerances.

Bye Antonio
Mathematics, and its sub-disciplines geometry and trigonometry are scientific tools, not laws. By themselves, they don't prove or disproof anything. It is also not clear what a "scientific law" should be. We have established physical/natural laws, and we use sciences like math to describe them. Science is a method, not a law.

And if you use the scientific method, then you need to know what you are doing otherwise your procedure / train or arguments can not be considered to be scientifically sound. E.g. when you want to proof the outcomes of a mathematical/geometrical reconstruction/theory, you need independent information, and not the reconstruction/theory itself.

The "due tolerances" (=random or gaussian-distributed errors) do only apply if you don't have systematic errors (e.g. a wrong frame rate) and if your mathematical model/theory makes sense (and it can only make sense or be regarded as correct if you can prove it with independent evidence). There are other requirements on the interpretation of tolerances as well, but the statement above is a minimum requirement. Before this requirement is not met, any discussion on "due tolerances" is meaningless.

In essence, in one sentence:

The theory can not be verified (=can not be called "correct") because there is no independent information to check it.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:54 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

I do not have any problem of course to compare my 2005 work to any other work and battle map proposed by anybody.

But, if I remember well somebody already told you that he is not willing to represent into a pragmatic comparable work the series of impossible statements that I am reading here above.

That did remind me a lot of Winklareth and Vic Dale type of attitude.

Anyhow, since I am reading that you are reluctant to dismiss immediately any theory unless it is done in a pragmatic way, ... let do it so it will be hopefully over pretty soon and forever.

Usually when proved wrong this person just runs away and refute to admit and agree about what the evidence shows.

But you can try if you like it to, ... it will not take a lot of time to verify it once again.

Here my 2005 version of the facts and all the data supporting it :

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrai ... trait1.htm

For all the warships ( all 6 ) you have everything long before 05:30, ... only some early Suffolk data are missed, ... but I can add them easily.

You have course, distances and bearings, ... you have the full map, ... and in case something is incorrect or partial or you need more data, ... I am ready to provide them to you since I am currently working on the latest version of this work.

But in order to counter that " theory " my 2005 work should be more then enough to overkill it.

I hope you will not mind if we apply the same approach to the Norfolk and the Suffolk tracks, so at least I will gain something from this work and after several months of refusal, I will have the answer ( acceptance = agreement ) to the evidence we ( me, Alberto Virtuani and Herr Nilsson ) have agreed and presented long time ago :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231&p=79492#p79492

Bye Antonio
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 2757
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:04 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "I have called no-one liar, perjurer or coward purely on the basis of my speculations."
It's true, Mr.Wadinga has just insinuated that Tovey was a dotard in 1961, that Ellis was a "poor old sailor" when writing his autobiography, that Roskill used Kennedy to pursue his agenda in 1970, that Pound did what he did because of his "brain tumor", that Brockmann misled all the military and politic leaders in Britain, etc.... All on the basis of his own biased speculations invented in order to deny the truth of this very poor military story.
He even called an officer dead in the attempt to do his duty (Arbuthnot) a "stupid"....

Come on, publish here a serious reconstruction (if able to produce something better then "own speculations")... :lol:
For the time being, despite all the "philosophic" considerations about methodology, NOBODY has been able to propose a better (=more precise and respectful of the evidences) battle reconstruction that Antonio's one: "in essence, in one sentence: The theory can not be" COUNTERED and this is a FACT, looking at the last posts.


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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

Post Reply