Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens » Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:34 am

Quality of commentary aside, a reminder to try to maintain civil and respectful tones. Once we get off that track, as we have seen before, progress of any sort essentially halts. Slow progress is better than none.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:56 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga had written: "...the remaining 10 degrees at average range 22,000yds would mean PG is still apparently 3,900yds ahead of Bismarck at 06:00"
then he wrote: "I didn't say at 06:00 did I?"
I would say he did say at 6:00....or that he was so confused writing his post that he allowed nobody to understand his baseless "objection"...

Now, instead of changing argument, let's hope he will try to explain what he meant in an understandable way. Lost bearing vs which ship ("Germans" is not a single point...) ?
PoW lost bearing from 335° at 5:53 to 328° at 6:02 vs BS (see salvo plot), 7° only, not 10°.
There are also 7° difference between the bearing of PG and BS as seen from PoW at 6:00 (see salvo plot and PoW bearing 143° from PG maps). Distance between PG and BS is therefore around 1900 meters (trigonometry), not 3900 yards.

Has Mr.Wadinga understood that the bearings he speaks about are related to different ships ?
Has he understood that these ships are changing their relative positions (even the distance between the "German ships" was changing...)
Got it ? (to use his nice words).

I don't think so, reading again and again his incomprehensibly confused posts above...



Distance at 6:00 is simply perfect, as 1900 meters smoothly matches with the evaluation of 2400-2500 meters at 5:55 (photo NH69722 at 5:55) and with the PG film where distance has been evaluated as around 1500-1700 meters at 6:03:45 after the turn), showing BS speed advantage over PG in this timeframe (BS closing PG by 100 meters per minute average, possibly accelerating to 30+ knots during the engagement). All bearings match as well, as Antonio posted map shows clearly viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=195#p81521.




@Byron Angel: I fully agree, that's why I underlined since the beginning that the ships were probably sailing full power (and ready for extra-power too as you suggest). Bismarck too possibly used extra-power if she was able to close to PG by 100 meters per minute.


@Bill Jurens: difficult to maintain respectful tones with someone who blatantly refused to discuss in an ordered way, point by point, who is mocking again when wrong, and who is refusing to admit his errors, changing argument instead (e.g. still waiting for his "evidence" supporting the speculation about Busch 15° bearing, according to him copied from a British message and "disguised" with a fake distance/timing... no comment... He just left without an answer to start again with his "snowstorm" of unsupported objections).


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)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens » Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:29 pm

OK.

Hopefully both sides will refrain from further snide remarks. Suggest we start again, and just discuss in detail only ONE set of initial bearings and distances, and see if we can agree upon that.

As Alberto has had the last post, I suggest Wadinga submit a single bearing/distance set, presumably the one he considers most contentious, explain his objection to it, and others -- if necessary -- can discuss to determine whether it is actually realistic or not.

Might that help?

Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:41 am

Hello All,

Rereading the letter written by Rowell in Iceland, it is clear he believed the PoW's A arcs were never opened before Hood's destruction, reinforcing Brooke and A V Godding's evidence.

I reproduced this letter at viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8249&start=30

Paragraph 6 says "The A arcs of Hood and PoW remained closed by the two turns of 40 degrees and 20 degrees towards the enemy."

Paragraph 7 says "After this the Admiral ordered 20 degree turn away together, thus opening the PoW's A arcs after the eighth salvo. The turn away was never executed as a few seconds later Hood was hit near the mainmast by at least one 15" shell and a huge column of flame shot up. the ship sank at once."

Frustratingly this is again grammatically badly expressed but clumsily says the turn to open A arcs was never made.

Reviewing the apparently incomprehensible bearing information included by Jasper in the KTB I have a new explanation. It should say that Hood's inclination was 20 degrees to the right ie she was steering 20 degrees off directly toward PG ie circa 303T at open fire. He makes no mention of a subsequent target aspect change.

If Jose is able to present a translation of Jasper's missing detailed gunnery report, we will, only then, have the detail necessary to resolve the errors in present information.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:40 am

Hello everybody,

I leave to the moderator the (hard) task to persuade Mr.Wadinga to follow his suggestions, expressing his objections in an ordered way, discussing a single set of bearing/distance taken from official evidences, instead of randomly collecting accounts supporting fantastic scenarios....


Back we are here with PoW Y turret, after having "discussed" bearing closure and having abandoned the discussion without getting any answer (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=210#p81532).
Wadinga wrote: "Rereading the letter written by Rowell in Iceland, it is clear he believed the PoW's A arcs were never opened before Hood's destruction..."
However we all know by now that this is wrong, based on the PoW official GAR and salvo plot (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm), stating clearly that Arcs were open after salvo 8.
Mathematical demonstration is here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81455&hilit=Barben#p81455 plus supporting evidences from Leach and Mr.Barben (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&hilit=Barben&start=180#p81498).

I will not repeat them again here, as this is not the topic and we should move on with Antonio's proposed "starting point". In no way (confused) accounts from survivors (e.g. Rowell clearly confused the turns, forgetting the first 20° one) can counter what is already available in the official reports.


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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3740
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:15 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

Bill Jurens, the board moderator, wrote :
I suggest Wadinga submit a single bearing/distance set, presumably the one he considers most contentious, explain his objection to it, and others -- if necessary -- can discuss to determine whether it is actually realistic or not.
We are waiting this new set of information, if they are different from the ones I have proposed here above.

Otherwise we are just waiting in fairness the acceptance of what I have presented above being correct, after the obvious controls, review and double check.

Of course everything with the agreed set of 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 )

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by pgollin » Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:24 pm

.

This is aVERY tangential post, I have written it because it MAY have a bearing on what is being discussed. IF people wish to ignore it that is fine with me.

There is a recent book "Gunther Prien and U-47", written by Dougie Martindale.

This is a general history of Prien and the U-47, including a VERY detailed examination of the attack on Scapa Flow.

I mention this because it examines many of the controversies associated with the attack and its subsequent reporting. I think it is fair to say that U-Boats lived and died by their ability to take accurate bearings and ranges, unfortunately the Official log information of the attack gave rise to many inaccuracies and this PLUS additional inaccuracies in subsequent accounts meant that the author spent much time and effort trying to sort out the errors.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED that ;

a: Even though only the U-47 was moving during the attack, the land was extremely well surveyed and the position of the various other ships were known due to surveyed buoys etc... there were some gross errors (N.B. there were slight movement of ships due to currents/tides and a couple of distant ships were moving).

b: Again, even though the attack was undertaken at relatively slow speed the times recorded in the log are occasionally not internally consistent (i.e. the U-Boats clock times) and are occasionally inconsistent with British timings (sometimes correct, sometimes "early" and sometimes "late".

This may strike people as similar to the Denmark Straits Battle, or not.

The author has his own reconstruction where he used the absolute knows (static bearings, etc) and then using best guesses as far as what was possible in terms of speed and agreed timings. But at the end of the day he had to make choices for some of the controversies. Some of the more egregious errors are ;

a: Estimated range to car spotted on land out by a factor of at least 10

b: Chart position of Royal Oak out by 350 metres

c: The positions for the first and stern shots out by up to 500 metres

d: The final salvo position out by up to 225 metres

e: The turn during reloading may be 200 metres from the chart position

f: the initial target range may be on far target, not Royal Oak as noted

All this within a relatively small area at slow speed with lots of land to give good bearings.

.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:35 am

Hello Antonio,

There are no new set of bearings, yet, but those that you have may not originate from where you think they do.

We have already identified errors in all the "Official Evidences" and they are even self contradictory at times. Dismissing witnesses as wrong because their evidence is at odds with other pieces of evidence presumes the latter are infallible. Being Official does not make them infallible.
presumably the one he considers most contentious, explain his objection to it,
I expect the 143T (197hm) from PG to PoW is the most contentious. On the Gefechtsskizze it points at Hood, not PoW. It says "Wechsel auf linken gegner". Jasper says he was zeroed in at 16-17,000m on PoW . Reimann has Hood on 150T at 05:59, much the same as Brinkmann five minutes before, gaining no bearing surprisingly, but a minute later PoW is 143T on both Reimann and Brinkmann. Now apparently the British ships are 7 degrees or 1900m apart, which we don't believe was true. Or one of these german bearings is incorrect.


I hope Jose can come up with the detailed German gunnery report, which may resolve this.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:41 am

Hello everybody,

from the above posts, I think it's clear that nobody will be willing to accept even the "starting point" proposed by Antonio, IMO because they know very well that all his reconstruction will follow logically and unavoidably from this starting point.


Wadinga wrote: "Being Official does not make them infallible."
Being not only official but also confirmed mathematically (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=135#p81455), makes them infallible and makes the (randomly picked up) accounts wrong. Any alternative to this calculation ?

he wrote: "the 143T (197hm) from PG to PoW is the most contentious. On the Gefechtsskizze it points at Hood, not PoW"
Where ? Please post the screenshot showing it.
This is Antonio's proposal as starting map based on bearings (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=195#p81521).
Is Mr.Wadinga saying that 143T on the PG map (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... tlemap.gif) is pointing to Hood ?

he wrote: "Now apparently the British ships are 7 degrees or 1900m apart, which we don't believe was true"
Why ? Who's "we" ? Where this "belief" comes from (excluding the wish to counter Antonio's proposal) ?


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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3740
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:00 am

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

we have agreed back on this thread about a bearing and a distance between the Prinz Eugen and the PoW in order to be able to merge together 2 available set of maps ( PG and PoW ) and define the battlefield.

The agreement was reached on the 143° bearing ( 2 times measurable on PG maps ) and the 15.000 meters distance ( from Jasper report ) after few analysis and exchange of post everybody can verify back on this thread.

You now wrote above :
I expect the 143T (197hm) from PG to PoW is the most contentious. On the Gefechtsskizze it points at Hood, not PoW.
This statement is clearly incorrect because we are not talking the 197 hectometer distance but only the 143° bearing only between Prinz Eugen and the PoW as long explained before, and in any case on the PG battle map ( Gefechtsskizze ) both the 143° bearing as well as that 197 hm incorrect distance evaluation by Brinkmann go to PoW and not to Hood, ... and it is very easy to be verified on the PG battle map.
More, on the Reimann PG torpedo map both the 143° bearing and the 197 hm incorrect distance go to PoW as well, confirming Brinkmann map too.
The case is closed.

Consequently your above statement is with no reason and the reference line connecting the PG and PoW maps is correct ( 143°T and 15.000 meters ) for this exercise as already agreed before.

This clearly stated, I do not see yet your evaluation of the bearings I have proposed despite Bill Jurens invitation to do it directly to you, ... and in case you disagree about them, ... your proposal set of bearings and the way to see and realize a different battlefield compared to the one I have proposed for everybody evaluation.

More, referencing this thread :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8359#p81542

Thanking Jose' Rico posted new official document, now you have an additional very important parameter to be verified at 05:55 between Bismarck and Hood on my proposed map, and it is the 20.800 meters distance at open fire.

Of course you can verify it after having checked the proposed set of bearings from the BC1 radio messages and PoW open fire one, ... and I can anticipate you that just like the bearings, ... also this distance will result being an almost perfect match.

This distance now is closing the demonstration and the whole matter, ... confirming the bearings been correct, and the initial set of parameters from PG to PoW been correct as well, ... as we already knew, ... but now they will have a very important confirmation too, ... from Adm Lutjens and that new document.

Of course everything with the due and already agreed tolerances, ...

I like to see the agreement now, ... or your alternative proposal including the supporting evidence on your side, ... just as I did with my demonstration.

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: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:47 pm

Hello All,

I thought we were having a discussion about bearings?
Is Mr.Wadinga saying that 143T on the PG map (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... tlemap.gif) is pointing to Hood ?
Yes I am, which is why I included (197 hm) to indicate the specific bearing I was talking about. It originates on the PG track at about 05:59:45 and points directly at Gegner Brennt on Hood, despite terminating on the PoW track. The previous bearing named 207 Auf rechten gegner doesn't intersect either track of Hood or PoW at and like the other doesn't generate a specific position, through which the track should be drawn. We already know the ranges and the courses of the British ships are wrong. The latter look like they are no more than an artist's impression and where the two only bearings arrive is purely haphazard.

BTW Jasper says he was zeroed in at 16-17,000m on PoW at 05:59 why do you keep saying 15,000m?

Both these tracks on this reliable Official evidence say the British ships were steaming south of 280T by 05:57, why put incorrect inclination information on the chart?

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:48 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "It originates on the PG track at about 05:59:45 and points directly at Gegner Brennt on Hood, despite terminating on the PoW track. "
No, another unsupported statement. This bearing also intersect Greenland, toward North-West, but it 's not the bearing of a polar bear, I guess...

It originates on the PG track at around 05:59:30 (without graphically intersecting it) and ends on the PoW track at around 05:59:30. Nothing to do with the Hood track, that would (very hypothetically) be intersected at 05:58. http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... tlemap.gif

The same bearing (just timed 06:00) is also on Reimann torpedo map http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... _chart.jpg

All bearings from PG are clearly pointing to a specific track (graphically intersecting the tracks or not), this one to PoW as all the others except the first two from the right, that are to Hood and... Norfolk (sic).


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:29 pm, edited 5 times 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)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3740
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:06 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I do not like to loose time being joked around in this way, ... not anymore.

The PG maps are clear and the bearing 143°T is traced toward the PoW, if you are not able to understand and realize it, ... is only your problem.

We have agreed about the utilization of the 143°T ( both PG maps ) and the 15.000 meters ( Jasper average distance at 06:00 between the declared 05:59 and 06:02 distances on his report ) being the reference between the maps of PG and PoW at 06:00.

Even Bill Jurens has produced his own example using those merging parameters being agreed, it is enough to look back and read it on this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=165#p81483

You have been requested to verify the other provided bearings and to agree about what has been presented being correct or, ... in case of a disagreement, ... to show us the reasons of your disagreement and your set of data with the supporting evidence to compare them with my provided ones.

@ Bill Jurens,

this way to act looks a lot like the past attitude I have already seen on the Norfolk and Suffolk tracks evaluation.

Once cornered and having realized the whole situation, this guy turns back and restart putting in discussion everything from the beginning muddying the water and hoping that confusing again the whole things he can run out of the discussion without the obvious admission of being incorrect as the evidence now do demonstrate.

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: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:05 pm

Hello All,

Once again there is the attempt to bully, cajole and steamroller through assertions, based on one interpretation of evidence generating "proof" of something, instead of examining that evidence properly. Perhaps there is a rush to "prove/win something" before the detailed German gunnery document (Das Gefecht in der Dänemarkstraße. Artilleriegefechtsbericht "Prinz Eugen" B.Nr. G 2243 vom 12.7.1941) comes to light and disproves these assertions once and forever, and shows why the Gefechtsskizze was identified as being useless and worthless, (how did Schmundt know unless he had contradicting evidence?) and therefore was required to be revised. (The new version has never come to light). Schmundt knew as early as 16th June that the depiction of Prince of Wales' position relative to PG was useless and worthless. Very strong pejorative terms to use to a Commander unless Schmundt was very unhappy, suspecting slackness or something else.
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

No, he does not say distance, he says position in this translation- position is composed of timing, bearing and distance. As we established, long ago bearing should be more precise, but in the case of determining whether Reimann should have fired his torpedo enemy heading ie inclination is more important.

It originates on the PG track at around 05:59:30 (without graphically intersecting it) and ends on the PoW track at around 05:59:30
What is the significance of this? According to this track PoW has been turning continuously to port since 05:55. Someone with a high quality copy can tell whether the intersection point of bearing and track is drawn at 197hm from PG's location given the 1:50000 scale. Was the track determined by joining up bearing and distance pairs, it would seem not, since this is the only bearing/distance pair that actually terminates at a track. The linkage looks extremely arbitrary to me.


It is indeed the same as Reimann's 06:00 bearing/distance pair, suggesting they both have the same source. What makes little sense that a bearing on Hood from the same source one minute previously was very different, despite the supposed proximity of the two British ships at 05:59.


All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:21 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Once again there is the attempt to bully, cajole and steamroller through assertions, based on one interpretation of evidence"
No, once again there is the attempt to invent things and deny evidences, in a game played too many times already by this guy.

He has just "invented" above that the bearing 143° distance 197 hm is referred to Hood (???) and he dares to speak about "interpretations", while refusing to admit that the pair is simply and obviously related to PoW, as anyone can see at glance looking at the 2 different available maps (even poor quality ones).
http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... tlemap.gif
http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... _chart.jpg


I hope the moderator will definitely stop this buffoonery of Mr.Wadinga, whose only glaring intent writing on this forum is to prevent any agreement to be found and the consequent (very inconvenient for him) truth to be unveiled and demonstrated, preferring the "fog of war" to hide forever the shame of that day.


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