Bismarck at DS after the second turn

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

Hello all:

We have, it seems, once more drifted into areas where much more 'ink' is spent in editorialization rather than discussion. A few of the immediately previous are particularly offensive in that regard. Those that cannot keep a civil tongue in their heads are essentially destroying this forum. It doesn't matter who starts the process, remember that name-calling doesn't strengthen your case -- it weakens it. These sorts of offensive posts are essentially destroying the utility of this forum. If you can't post in a civil and respectful manner, please don't post at all. By doing so, you are just acting as an obstacle to further progress. One post in the nature of those I have read recently here can set things back days and weeks, perhaps even permanently.

Specifically, there seems to be a consistent tendency amongst some to try to assign critical commentary from other correspondence as springing from some sort of 'agenda', hidden or otherwise, on the opposing side. Facts -- which is what we are, or should be -- discussing here, don't come with agendas. In short form, approaching the problems here with a given endpoint in mind, either on one's own side or on the part of some others, only transforms discussion into debate -- basically converting the forum into a sort of courtroom, where one side is acting as the prosecution and the other acting in defense. This, of course, implicitly assumes that there is one correct answer -- 'guilty' or 'not-guilty' to some charge or specification. The trick is to realize that, until or unless we formally assign one -- there is no charge or specification to be argued. That is one reason why I have attempted to try to break the issue down into small components, each of which can be argued on their own merits, before moving on to others.

In this case, we might consider our mini-case to revolve around whether or not it can be proven (within reasonable limits) that specific range and bearing set 'X' at time 'Y' shown on chart "Z" is reliable enough to use as a foundation for other work? I think Antonio and Wadinga, at least, have agreed upon a specific example upon which we can work, which we might call Observation Set No. 1. One hopes that input from them, and various other contributors, will enable us to assign some sort of 'research value' to this particular observation set, presumably ranging somewhere between 'almost certainly correct" and "almost certainly wrong". As before, we do, I think, need some additional feedback from others to help us reach a consensus. When that is done, and patience prevails, we can move on to Observation Set number 2. After a few of these are done, we will probably find that we eventually get pretty good at this, so that subsequent discussions should be -- one hopes -- both shorter and less argumentative in tone.

If offensive and disrespectful posts continue, I will have to take action.

The previous was written from the moderator's chair. The following is from 'just plain Bill':

I have been working on the German track chart quite a bit lately, using very advanced graphics programs that allow measurements to be extracted with great precision. One problem, at least so far as I can interpret the map as presented is that there is no effective scale. A scale is given, of course, i.e. 1:50000, but unless one holds the original manuscript and can measure on it directly, this is useless for primary analysis. (As an aside, this suggests, at least to me, a rather low skill level on the part of the draftsman, who should have included one or more dimensioned scales bar as well, which in effect says "This map was originally drawn at at approximate scale of 1:50000, but have changed in size itself, e.g. via shrinkage, in the interim. Further, a copy of the map may have actually been reproduced at some other scale entirely.") I haven't seen any calibrated scale bars on the map in question (yet), but If anyone has seen such a formal scale bar on this chart, please point it out to me.

There is, of course, an often rather unsatisfactory solution to this problem, which amounts to taking some already known or dimensioned distance on the map in question and using this to calibrate the rest of the map by forcing the known value to be correct. If a known distance of (say) 1356 meters scales as 13 mm on the map, this would suggest a practical working scale of 1356000/13 = 1:104307. Problems occur if our 'known' calibration value is incorrect, insofar as the entire map will then be incorrect, though at least reasonably consistently so. More severe problems occur when the calibrated value -- or values -- are themselves only approximate or inconsistent. If our 'known' value of 1356 meters is actually 1292 meters our calculated scale will be incorrect as will all the others.

Having more than one value to calibrate against helps, though the answer we get may not be the answer we like. Supposing, for example, that we have, as above, a 'known' of 1356 meters which scales as 13mm on the map. Suppose we also have another known of 1828 meters which scales as 14.2 mm, and another 'known' of 2285 meters which scales as 19 mm on the map. Now we have three scales to compare, and calculate against, viz.

1356000/13 = 1:104307
1828000/14.2 =1:128732
2285000/19 = 1:120263

What now is the correct scale of the map? We either have a)a map of consistent scale where at least some of the 'known' distances are incorrect, b) a map of inconsistent scale, where measurements other than the 'known' values are unreliable or indeterminate, or c) some combination of both. Further, what if the map is annotated as being to a scale of 1:100000? In the case of the German track chart, there are few areas where one can assume that one set of measurements are correct without simultaneously disrupting other, apparently equally reliable measurements. It's a bit like listening to twenty different witnesses to a crime, and trying to decide which voice (or voices) to listen to and which might be safely ignored.

This sort of situation occurs, of course, all the time in land-surveying, where old maps are in poor condition, only a diagram or a legal description remains (but not both), or errors were made in the original surveys. It also occurs in brand-new surveys, where one starts out at some station point 'A' then proceeds to create a 'traverse' by measuring angles and distances to successive points 'B', 'C' and 'D', etc. If one knows one's business, one always 'closes the traverse' by taking the last set of measurements, e.g. from the last point, which we will suppose to be 'K', back to point 'A" where one started. In theory, once all the math is done, the last leg of the traverse should then bring one exactly back to point 'A' again, which has not moved in the interim. This, of course, never occurs, and -- because a closed figure must always close exactly -- some fairly elaborate schemes are used in order to 'close the traverse', i.e. to adjust the various angles and distances measured along each leg of the traverse to value which allow the traverse to exactly close at the end. This, as we all know, usually works out pretty well in practice...

What we have in the German sketch is what, at least in English, is typically called an 'open traverse', where no closure is made at the end, rendering any sort of checking of the accuracy of the traverse impossible. Further, we have a map of apparently unknown actual scale, where -- as a bit of measurement on the scans will show, the 'known' values themselves are inconsistent, i.e. the numerical annotations alongside the bearing lines cannot be brought into consistent congruence with the actual length of the lines themselves. This leaves us, so far as I know, somewhat adrift in the midst of a sea of indeterminates.

Looking at the map objectively, as an ex-cartographer and as a fellow who has spent a fair amount of time actually doing survey work in the field, my immediate assessment would tend to concur with the German description of the map as being more or less worthless. That does not mean that it is entirely without value insofar as it still probably gives a reasonably close approximation to what actually happened, but that there is a certain point beyond which it simply cannot be trusted for detail. It's better than nothing to be sure, but(at least in the absence of other information) not much.

I'd be very interested in commentary on this, particularly if it can be kept somewhat dispassionate in tone, and particularly if it does not merely serve to distract from other issues, i.e. the discussion(s) around Observation Set 1, etc. mentioned above.

Bill Jurens
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

you wrote :
I think Antonio and Wadinga, at least, have agreed upon a specific example upon which we can work, which we might call Observation Set No. 1.

One hopes that input from them, and various other contributors, will enable us to assign some sort of 'research value' to this particular observation set, presumably ranging somewhere between 'almost certainly correct" and "almost certainly wrong".

As before, we do, I think, need some additional feedback from others to help us reach a consensus.

When that is done, and patience prevails, we can move on to Observation Set number 2.

After a few of these are done, we will probably find that we eventually get pretty good at this, so that subsequent discussions should be -- one hopes -- both shorter and less argumentative in tone.
The agreement was 143°T bearing and 15.000 meters being the connecting parameter between the PG and PoW maps/tracks at 06:00 battle time.

It generated the Observation Set No 1 to be evaluated, this one :
0520_until_0600_bearings_02.jpg
0520_until_0600_bearings_02.jpg (50.38 KiB) Viewed 3466 times
Unless Alberto Virtuani that has agreed about them, I have not read any other contributor comment or evaluation of the proposed Observation Set No 1, despite the many invitation to do it.

In the opposite I am reading that now Wadinga is trying to move back putting in discussion the base agreed connecting starting parameters ( the 143°T and 15.000 meters between PG and PoW at 06:00 ) while carefully avoiding to evaluate as requested the Observation Set No 1.

How do I have to read this attitude and action now by Wadinga ?

All I was asking is to follow your logic and read a " almost certainly correct " or " almost certainly wrong " evaluation by the contributors about the Observation Set No 1.

As said I have now only Alberto Virtuani contribution with the " almost certainly correct " personal position.

The Observation Set No 1 is still to be evaluated by the one that like to contribute.

I like to add to the Observation Set No 1 evaluation also the 20.800 meters distance verification between Bismarck position and Hood position on that map at 05:55 ( German open fire ), that will confirm that the map scale we are using based on the agreed connecting parameters ( 143°T and 15.000 meters between PG and PoW at 06:00 ) is very close to be perfect.
This because everybody can easily verify that the 20.800 meters distance between Bismarck and Hood at 05:55 is there as well.

Thanks for your help.

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 )
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

Hello Antonio:

Thanks for your commentary.

I am confused. Taken as read, the P.E. track chart at 0:600 seems to show a bearing of 143 degrees true to Prince of Wales, but the range as printed on the chart seems to be 197 hm, i.e. 19,700 meters. Where did the 15000 meter "agreed upon" range figure come from?

Any other commentators?

Bill Jurens.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

let me recap what has been agreed after some exchange of opinions on the 2 parameters we are using to merge the Prinz Eugen original map own track to the PoW one, while disregarding completely the view of the enemy tracks on both maps.

First the 143°True bearing that just as you have double checked is available and measurable on both Prinz Eugen maps, I mean the battle map and the Torpedo map and it is the connection at 06:00 between the Prinz Eugen position and the PoW position.
In case of the battle map the line distance of 197 hm is traced a bit before the 06:00 mark but it does not matter, it is enough to measure the bearing between the 06:00 marks of Prinz Eugen and PoW to verify the bearing at 06:00 with enough accuracy.

Second the above mentioned 197 hectometer distance, that is incorrect by more than 4000 meters as we have already discussed back on this thread, and consequently we decided to use the Jasper evaluated distance at 06:00 from his report, because Jasper was scoring hits on the PoW at that time and soon after, so with due tolerances he was surely more precise than Brinkmann, as VizeAdm Schmundt highlighted on his report too.
On the Jasper report there is not the 06:00 distance clearly stated, but we have the 05:59 distance evaluation ( 16.000 to 17.000 meters ) and the 06:02 distance that was evaluated been around 14.000 meters. It does not take much to realize that at 06:00 the correct distance between Prinz Eugen and PoW was in the range of 15.000 meters, in between those 2 taken and clearly reported distance measurements.

The fact that those 2 merging parameters, the 15.000 meters and the 143° T bearing at 06:00 between PG and PoW are correct, will be easy to be verified at the end of the Observation Set No 1 map by simply measuring the distance between Bismarck and Hood at 05:55 ( German open fire ).
That distance on my map will be very close to the 20.800 meters that was communicated by Adm Lutjens to SKL and written on many German official reports, ... like the one Jose Rico as just posted on another thread ( report to AH by Adm Raeder at the Berghof of June 6th, 1941 ).

Again, ... everything with the due tolerances ... of course.

But we are close, ... very close now ... and I do not see any reason to disagree, ... from my side, ... but only some better definitions to be agreed among positive contributors, ... to this battle map re-construction.

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: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

What I gather from:
In the opposite I am reading that now Wadinga is trying to move back putting in discussion the base agreed connecting starting parameters ( the 143°T and 15.000 meters between PG and PoW at 06:00 ) while carefully avoiding to evaluate as requested the Observation Set No 1.
Regarding your map, it is that you believe you are "closing the traverse" because by setting the two tracks relative to each other, as you have, with 143T 15000m at one end, you have achieved bearing correlation on one or more of the British bearings at the other end. You also say:
The fact that those 2 merging parameters, the 15.000 meters and the 143° T bearing at 06:00 between PG and PoW are correct, will be easy to be verified at the end of the Observation Set No 1 map by simply measuring the distance between Bismarck and Hood at 05:55 ( German open fire ).
That distance on my map will be very close to the 20.800 meters that was communicated by Adm Lutjens to SKL and written on many German official reports, ... like the one Jose Rico as just posted on another thread ( report to AH by Adm Raeder at the Berghof of June 6th, 1941 ).
Closing the traverse using the Bismarck distance is however contentious since there are no ranges for Bismarck actually recorded against specific times, and the open fire time for Bismarck is itself contentious. Attempting to use a vague correlation at one end, to confirm precision at the other would be very poor surveying practice.


The quality of all of this depends on, as has been acknowledged, "due tolerances".
On the Jasper report there is not the 06:00 distance clearly stated, but we have the 05:59 distance evaluation ( 16.000 to 17.000 meters )
This means that the range was somewhere between 16,000m and 17,000m, including these extreme values, not that the low value should be assumed and then used with 14,000m stated to be valid sometime between 06:02 and 06:03 to derive a very shaky average of 15,000m for 06:00, which is then termed "definitive". It also assumes that no major change in rate of change of distance occurred, because there were no major changes in either track between 05:59 and 06:02-03 which allows this averaging to work.

However, as we have established, most witnesses including senior officers of both British and German ships say PoW turned hard towards the enemy, very shortly after 06:00, making the 14,000m figure invalid as averaging device, because the courses steered were not constant.

BTW, since Jasper had his own precise recorded values for range against time for the gunnery system, why express ranges of values as in 16-17,000m (suspiciously rounded) and 06:02-3, vague on timing? British values from the salvo chart are not rounded but precisely stated (even though bearings are measured and ranges remain estimates through rangefinder error). This why we need that German gunnery report with the same level of detail as the British one. This is why the version of the Gefechtsskizze we have access to, ie uncorrected, is not definitive. Did your discussions with Hans-Henning von Schultze indicate whether a corrected version as required by Schmundt, was ever produced?


This debate has raged for years, I see no need for a precipitate rush to conclusions, based solely on assertions.


All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,

I understand, from the above post of Mr.Wadinga, that he has accepted that the PG bearing 143° at 5:59:30 - 06:00 is referred to PoW, by now.

Bill Jurens wrote some time ago: "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. "
I also understand, from the above post, that he has chosen the 06:00 bearing 143° distance 15000 meters as this single set of data he considers most contentious in Antonio's proposal, and that his doubts concern only the distance (15000) by now.

Despite all the listed reasons why he is not convinced (I would say it's easy to list doubts without presenting any alternative), I have not seen any other scenario: what was the distance at 06:00 according to him ? 15.400 ? 14.800 ? Only with two different proposals we can establish which is either the most correct one or which is simply impossible due to all the other data (that we luckily do have).
Could he present his alternative (possibly in graphical form as Antonio has done to facilitate comparison viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81569#p81563) ?


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: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Please can you provide an answer to:
Did your discussions with Hans-Henning von Schultze indicate whether a corrected version as required by Schmundt, was ever produced?
Is it, like Jasper's full gunnery report, still "out there" to be found?

Hello Alberto
I also understand, from the above post, that he has chosen the 06:00 bearing 143° distance 15000 meters as this single set of data he considers most contentious in Antonio's proposal, and that his doubts concern only the distance (15000) by now.

Actually what is contentious is that Reimann, also apparently taking bearings from the same source, ie PG main fire control, which was tracking Hood not PoW only a minute earlier at 05:59, records a very different bearing for her from that for PoW, when we believe the two ships were no more than a few hundred yards apart. Either the 05:59 bearing to Hood or the 06:00 bearing to PoW is probably wrong. Which one?


These anomalies need to be resolved before we can accept Observation set 1.


All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "These anomalies need to be resolved before we can accept Observation set 1."
... and what would be the alternative to 143°, 15000 meters at 06:00 from PG to PoW ? Where is the counter-proposal from Mr.Wadinga ?

In the absence of a credible alternative (that can match with the other chosen bearings (see viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81569#p81563) too, I would say that they are a reasonable starting point. As I have said, " it's easy to list doubts without presenting any alternative".


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: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

the parameters we have agreed to merge the 2 PG and PoW tracks from their own maps realizing the battlefield are of course with the obvious tolerances anybody can easily understand and accept o this moment.
This does not mean that at the end of the whole analysis we will agree that the 143° T will be better being 142,5°, or 143, 4 ° or 144, 7° and the 15.000 meters are resulting being 14.650 or 15.600 meters after a more precise definition of all the other parameters we have.

Please forget the other problems you find on the original maps, ... otherwise we will never do anything, .... because there is not a single absolutely 100% perfect map on both sides to work with.
It is not that we choose what we like, ... we need to select what is valid to define the whole scenario as correct as we can, ... the sooner and the better to have the obvious logic confirmation we need after, ... doing the verification steps, ... and only this must be our final goal.

What count in this moment is the analysis and the agreement of what this enabled us to create, by tracing all the tracks correctly ( course and speed ) from 05:37 until 06:00 and after verify the bearings A, B, C and D on the Observation Set No 1 map I have prepared, just as Bill Jurens wisely todl us to do.

I suggest you to use my 2005 large scale map ( or just produce your own large scale one ) and do some controls and verifications and you will easily agree on the bearings A, B, C and D being respected with a good enough precision, and consequently defining the battlefield with a good level of approximation already.

Same thing for the 20.800 meters between Bismarck and Hood at 05:55 battle time ( German Open Fire time ), that will result been there too, with a very good approximation already as well.

Hans Henning von Schultz did not recall about any additional report prepared or presented after those maps, and he was the Officer that Kpt Brinkmann gave the responsibility to manage either Schmundt, Carls and the OKM in Berlin about those reports and the BS reconstructed war diary, that was his highest priority among all the other activities.

I will keep on hunting for the other documents that so far are not available anywhere as far as I know.

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 )
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

Hello Antonio:

Thanks for your recent postings. I am still struggling a bit with what we are now calling Observation Set 1, hereafter OS1. In this, I take it that you feel that the overall bearing for OS1 is more-or-less correct, but that the distance noted along the sight line is not really c. 19,700 m as the notation shows, but more like 15000 m.

If you feel 15000 m to be the correct value, then do you see this as being due to an error in initial measurement, i.e that the scale distance on the map is correct, i.e is drawn at 19,700 m/50000 = 394mm, but the value was measured incorrectly when it was observed, i.e. it is not 19,700 m at all, or is the scaled distance on the chart to be taken as being equal to 15000 m, making the distance on the piece of paper equal to 300mm, and the number written along the sight line is incorrect?

All of this of course revolves around determining exactly what scale the German track chart is really, when digitized for viewing as a scanned artifact. The chart claims, of course, to be at a scale of 1:50000, but how exactly might we check this so that other distances and bearings can be assessed? Knowing this, for example, would enable us, one hopes, in at least some situations to see how close the written values are to the actual scaled distances, and perhaps explain what the discrepancies are. (One assumes that the chart is not just intended as a very general sketch, insofar the value of 1:50000 would presumably be omitted entirely, or annotated as "approximate".) I have not been able to come up with any very satisfying results by trying to match the various annotated values, as -- at least so far as I can tell -- if one is made to match, all (or at least most) of the others come out wrong.

I am trying to follow in your footsteps here. In that regard, have you been able to in any way calibrate the scanned image to some specific distance on the chart so that we can at least begin to tell exactly what the intended distances were? If one could say, for example, that the distance between the ends of OS1 on the actual piece of paper in the archive was 394 mm, 300 mm, or something else, then the 1:50000 scale notation would allow us to determine the congruence between scaled and annotated distances once and for all. The problem, of course, is that -- although the original chart would seem to still exist somewhere in some archive -- nobody seems as yet to have established this sort of a benchmark measurement.

Comments (and further information) very welcome...

Bill Jurens.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

I see your points, so let me recap a bit for everybody benefit.

Yes, I think that my Observation Set No 1 is almost correct and just needs some small adjustments to realize a reliable enough battlefield area we can start using as reference base.

The 19.700 meters on the PG maps is an incorrect distance that both Brinkmann and after even Reimann wrote on bot the Gefecthskizze as well as o the PG torpedo map.
In fact Jasper ( PG Gunnery Officer ) opened fire at 05:55 from 20.200 meters on Hood and just before turning away from the PoW at 06:03 he evaluated the distance ( closest point for Pg to the enemy ) having closed in the range of only 14.000 meters.

It becomes immediately evident having Jasper data that Brinkmann and Reimann were both wrong by more than a 4000 meters error factor and in fact VizeAdm Schmundt commented very negatively with Brinkmann his presented map telling him that with those distances it was not possible to determine the real distance between the Prinz Eugen and the enemy, suggesting him to redo the map by using the computing station data ( gunnery data = Jasper data ), thus confirming what I am saying here now.
This new distance evaluation is exactly what I am suggesting to do here now, and in fact instead of the incorrect 19.700 meters we are using to merge the maps my own estimated 15.000 meters evaluation coming from the Jasper available data during the battle ( he stated 16.000-17.000 at 05:59 and 14.000 at 06:02-06:03).

This is the reason why 143° True bearing associated with the 15.000 meters ( and not with the 19.700 meters ) is the more correct set of parameters to merge the PG to the PoW tracks at 06:00 battle time.

YES, I think that the number ( 19.700 meters ) is incorrect when associated to the BC1 warships at 06:00 and it was due to the confusion they made between the BC1 warships and the Norfolk distances mixing up everything.
I wrote about this evident distances mismatch between Jasper and Brinkmann/Reimann already on my 2005 article on Storia Militare.

I see your problems with the PG map and I agree, that map is very poorly done and in fact I only took from it only the 220° True course for PG and that 06:00 bearing to the PoW.

I did not spend any time evaluating that map scale and as I have suggested to everybody I started pretty soon to drew my own map from zero, so I have traced the PG on 220° True course at 27 knots ( 833 meters every minute ) from 05:37 until 06:00.
It is just a straight line.

I suggest to do the same also for the BC1 warships at 28 knots, from 05:37 until 06:00 but here we have 3 turns and 4 different course change from 240° to 280°, ... from 280° to 300, ... and back from 300° to 280°True. Some impact on the speed during those 3 turns should be evaluated here.

Once I have realized the poor quality of the map overall, .... and it is enough to evaluate the different time marks on the PG track to realize that they are not all the same in scale so they are not even respecting the 27 knots speed all the way thru, ... and consequently I never tried to do the calculations you are suggesting.

I have purchased form Bundesarchiv an high quality color reprint of the original maps so we can do all the measurements we like if needed.

But again, I think we better realize a brand new high scale map using the reliable agreed parameters and work on that one as a team, just as I did myself since years.

I use for my PC 2 different scale sets, 1 cm = 1.000 meters and 1 cm = 1 sea mile, ... for different evaluation reason needs.

Let me know what do you think and how you like to proceed.

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 )
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

Thanks, Antonio. I-- and I am sure at least some others as well -- greatly appreciate the efforts you are willing to take to move the investigation forward, and your patience at explaining precisely how you have arrived at various conclusions, often for the fifteenth or twentieth time.

It will be interesting to see what you get from the BundesArchiv. Be very careful here, though, as my experience is that they have not been doing an outstanding job of reproducing things exactly to scale, or even making it possible to determine exactly what the precise scale is (or was). In the old days when photography was used to make copies the original was often mounted on a baseboard with scales already attached, so that paper size could be recovered by that means, or a short ruler was placed on the original in an obscure spot. Now that they tend to scan using 'flowform' roller-based scanners, this is much more difficult to do. If the original 'skids' while moving through the rollers, scale in the area where the 'skid' occurs can be quite far out.

One way to determine size is to attach a small scale bar (or anything else of known size) to the original document so that it is scanned as well. One hopes that part of the reproduction process will include some sort of 'paper size' scale bar, so that the exact size of the original document can be recovered. (A 'post it' note stuck in an obscure corner with a carefully-made measurement on it would do.) Now, archives seem to simply scan the original and make a printout at whatever scale suits the standard paper sizes their plotter can produce. Getting a good scan from the archives is, of course, worthwhile, but unless it can be used to determine scale as well, i.e. if it's only a nicer version of something we don't really know the size of, it's probably not of much additional use. Alternatively, if one can obtain an original scan, the precise size of the original can often be obtained from the information on the scan itself...)

Perhaps the archivists there would be willing to take a single measurement as a benchmark for reference purposes, or -- if the location of the archival record is known -- one of our members in Germany can go down, view the original, and take a reference measurement on site.

I suspect it might be better to wait for this additional information to come in before we pursue things much farther insofar as a determination of the exact distances on the actual chart might be useful in sorting out some other contentious issues as well. Alternatively, we could move OS1 to the 'back burner' and see if we can investigate some other observational set, OS2, in the interim.

Do you have a suggestion as to exactly which observation set OS2 might be? Wadinga, as I recall, picked the first observation set, so perhaps it would be most appropriate for you to choose the second.

Bill Jurens.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "Wadinga, as I recall, picked the first observation set, so perhaps it would be most appropriate for you to choose the second."
Did he ? He listed a long list of doubts/inconsistencies, but he never proposed any alternative set from his side.

I have not yet seen his acknowledgment even about the 143°, 15000 meters as starting reference point. Moving ahead without his explicit ok of OS1 would mean he will be back challenging OS1 proposed by Antonio very soon again, when the consequences of having accepted the starting points/bearings will get unavoidably to the complete reconstruction of the battle-battlefield.

Before moving to OS2, I would suggest anyone who has not yet accepted OS1 to raise their hand now (proposing an alternative) or... silence will be interpreted as a fully convinced acknowledgement.


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: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

It is my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that Wandinga has considered OS1 and considers it problematical. One way to help to tip the scales either way might be to determine whether the actual 'paper distance' for this observation set corresponds to 15000 or 19700 meters. Antonio is, as I understand it, in the process of verifying this. Determining if the 'paper distances' and the written annotations correspond would help to establish the veracity and reliability of the P.E. track chart as a whole.

In that regard, I don't think it necessary for Wandinga, or anyone else, to propose a 'better' hypothesis. One does not have to have a 'better' hypotheses to refute, or at least cast in doubt, an existing one. I may, for example, not have an explicitly better hypothesis on how my automobile engine works -- I may in fact have almost no clue at all -- but that does not mean I am not justified in declaring an allegation that it actually runs on steam to be incorrect. One does not need to know what's true to establish what is probably, or at least possibly, false. The fact that I do not know where a certain individual, e.g. yourself, might be at given time 'x', does not mean that I do not know that you were not in my living room. I don't know where you were -- i.e. I don't have a 'better hypothesis', but I do know that any hypothesis suggesting you were in my presence at time 'x' is incorrect.

Similarly, it is -- at least in my opinion -- unreasonable to assert the proposition that lack of any reply equates in some realistic way to acquiescence. No reply at all equates, in essence, to 'no comment', i.e. amounts to neither a confirmation nor an affirmation of the allegation.
One cannot equate 'no comment' to either 'yes' or 'no' because it simply means neither...

I think it is fairest to say that in the absence of further information, observation set OS1 remains somewhat problematical. In the interim, whilst we await more data on OS1, this would not prevent us from attempting to examine some other observation set, OS2, independently. The key, in any case, is to establish the reliability of the various observation sets independently, i.e. one cannot use OS1 to justify OS2 and vice-versa. The first step, I think, is to try to determine -- for lack of a better term, the 'reliability coefficient' of each observational set independently, only then attempting to reassemble and integrate them into a coherent picture.

But that's just me...

Hope this helps...

As always, comments welcome...

Bill Jurens.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Mr.Jurens,
you wrote: " One does not need to know what's true to establish what is probably, or at least possibly, false....."
I (respectfully) totally disagree.
If you don't know at all how your car works, you cannot say it is not steam or nuclear or even faith propelled.... Only (at least a partial) knowledge can allow anyone to say that something is wrong. You can say your car is not steam propelled because you do know it has a combustion engine inside. If you see a UFO, you cannot say it is not propelled by the mental energy of its occupants, because you know nothing about its civilization and technology.

However, I guess this kind of philosophical discussion is always debatable (and, at least for me, not very exciting)....


Let's "patiently" wait that someone else than Antonio will propose another credible OS2 then.... because I'm afraid that if nobody can propose anything alternative to OS1 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81585#p81563), it just means OS1 is the only reasonable starting point to reconstruct the battle, despite all doubts and criticisms.


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