"Official" Version of Battle?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Robert J. Winklareth
-
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
Contact:

"Official" Version of Battle?

Post by Robert J. Winklareth » Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:45 pm

Hi all,

On !4 February, Antonio Bonomi posted the following statements on the Bismarck-class web site: "As several knowledgeable guys have already clearly understood and agreed with me last year there is only one valid scenario for the battle and it is the one that I have re-constructed on 2003 that we are all trying now to improve."

Antonio goes on to say: "I think that what the 3 main websites covering the battle (KBismarck.com by Rico, Bismarck-class by Asmussen and Hood.com by Allen) are showing as official version of the facts is more than enough to confirm what I am saying." The identification of the three websites in parentheses is as written by Antonio and not added by myself.

Antonio's revelation that the three websites have already proclaimed his version of the battle to be the one and only "official" version of the battle deeply concerns me. I was not aware that any website had made such a proclamation, which is truly beyond belief.

Webmasters of course have the right and obligation to present their own personal views on a topic in the Forum, especially if those views can contribute to a better understanding of the subject matter. The unprecedented action of proclaiming one side of an issue to be the one and only "official" version of the issue is quite another matter. If true, it demeans the contributions of others with different points of view and makes further input into the topic superfluous.

What is even more disturbing in this case is that there is virtually no evidence to support Antonio's theory of the battle while there is overwhelming evidence to support contrary points of view, as recently posted. One can only wonder as to why Antonio's theory of the battle would be proclaimed to be the one and only "official" version of the battle if not based on the evidence and facts of the matter.

I believe that all of us are entitled to an explanation from the webmasters of each of the websites cited by Antonio as to the accuracy of the information contained in his statement. If in fact true, by what authority does the webmaster proclaim one side of an issue to be the one and only "official" version of that issue? Have any other similar proclamations been issued, and if so, where are they posted?

I regret having to question the webmasters on this matter, but Antonio's statement is so egregious that the issue must be resolved immediately to set a clear path for the future.

Bob

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Post by José M. Rico » Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:39 pm

Hello Bob,

I don't recall me making any such proclamation on this matter. The way I understand this, Antonio's allusions to these battle accounts as "official" versions have to do with the fact that this is how the story was more or less told for more than 50 years until your book was published in the late 1990's. Maybe I am wrong here, but I don't remember anyone mentioning any photographs being printed in reverse before your book was published.

Sincerely,

José

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

DS battle

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:28 am

Ciao Jose, Bob and all,

I do not recall me mentioning any name among the '' several competent guys '' I have referred to.

Mr. Winklareth knows well who they are and their opinions.

Moving into the '' official version '' showed by the 3 websites I was simply making reference to the Denmark Strait battle story those 3 websites are proposing to the readers to explain the Denmark Strait battle.

Those ones :

http://www.kbismarck.com/operheini.html

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/h ... attle.html

http://www.hmshood.com/ship/history/bmhood/BMHood.html

those to me are the '' Official versions '' of the story according to the websites.
It is just a matter of fact under the eyes of the whole world.
I hope everybody will easily agree with me.

2 of them are either directly using my work or listing it as reference. Your one is not my work directly but it is very close and basically tells the same story with same '' key '' events listed conceptually, just as HMS Hood does.
Your battle map shows the same Bismarck track I have plotted on principle, the turn to starboard and the 2 PG wake crossing, so the position on the core issue is clearly defined and it is according to my re-construction.
They are all basically the same '' traditional '' theory known since 64 years, the backbone of my work.

None of them shows Bismarck photos reversed.
None of them makes Bismarck surpassing Prinz Eugen on Port side.
None of them refers to Mr. Winklareth theory/job as reference.

I like to take the occasion to underline some clear statements for everybody to understand better :

From your own battle story Jose :
After the Hood blew up ( at 06.01 ), the Bismarck turned to starboard and concentrated her fire on the Prince of Wales.

...............

At 06.09 the Germans ( both PG and BS ) fired their last salvo and the battle ended.
and from HMS Hood website :
Meanwhile, the German vessels had other "problems" to contend with: At roughly 0603 and again at 0607 and 0609, the underwater sound detectors of Prinz Eugen picked up the sound of torpedoes. Though it seemed highly unlikely, it was felt that the torpedoes were a potential threat as they could have been launched by Hood, undetected submarines or possibly a nearby aircraft. The German ships therefore took the alerts seriously and executed a series of torpedo avoidance manoeuvres. Both ships continued firing at the fleeing Prince of Wales in the process. During the course of these manoeuvers, Bismarck approached fairly closely to Prinz Eugen (astern and to starboard). She later crossed Prinz Eugen's wake towards the port side. Note- Of course, the British hadn't really fired torpedoes. Of the British combatants directly involved, only Hood had such a capability. It is highly unlikely that she would have launched from such an extreme range. Even more unlikely that they would actually come close to the German ships. It should also be noted that British witnesses do not recall any orders being given to launch torpedoes. It could not have been the nearby British aircraft either. There were also no submarines in the area. Prinz Eugen most likely detected the sound of collapsing bulkheads and wrenching steel coming from the sinking Hood. At this point she was well on her way down to the ocean floor and was being torn apart.

During this timeframe, there was also an aircraft alarm, due to the appearance of a Sunderland flying boat (Z201 of 201 Squadron, piloted by Flt Lt. Vaughn). Following the completion of the third anti-torpedo manoeuvre, Bismarck advanced forward along Prinz Eugen's port side. She was in this position when the surface battle ended at 0609. In order to resume her leading position, Prinz Eugen had to increase speed to maximum. By the time the antiaircraft barrages ceased at 0620, Prinz Eugen had already begun to pull well ahead of Bismarck. The German ships ultimately resumed their pre-battle positions.
Does it really took Mr. Winklareth my post and my 2 phrases to realize all this ?

I am really surprised !

Let me take the occasion to remind Mr. Winklareth that there is a young newcomer ( Ian K W ) waiting for his confirmation about his own understanding of L. Kennedy statements concerning the turn to starboard and the combing of tracks been the core of the issue in discussion here.

Here in :

viewtopic.php?p=730#730

I am sure he will not leave the young guy unanswered and he will understand too what the newcomer seems to have understood within few days.

Hope to have clarified the matter.

Ciao Antonio :D

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

DS battle

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:41 pm

Ciao all,

for reference pourpose only :

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/forum/view ... 2875#12875

Ciao Antonio :D

Robert J. Winklareth
-
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
Contact:

Post by Robert J. Winklareth » Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:56 pm

Hi Jose,

Thanks for clarifying your position in this matter. I am pleased that you did not proclaim Antonio's Reconstruction as the one and only "official" version of the battle, as he claimed. This is apparently just another attempt by Antonio to exclude other viewpoints from being expressed on the forum after his unsuccessful attempt to have my concept of the battle expunged from John's website.

Antonio's statement is of course ridiculous on the face of it since I believe that most members of the forum, including myself, are under the impression that there are two separate versions of the battle under discussion, and that neither version has as yet been accepted by the community as a whole as being the one and only valid version of the battle. I also believe that we all share a common desire for a level playing field in these discussions, and we certainly encourage participation by the widest possible audience.

Antonio's use of the word "official" is especially repugnant since it connotes that his theory has been formally approved by some higher authority, which is certainly not the case. If either theory could be considered as the "official" version of the battle, my own concept of the event probably deserves that honor more so than Antonio's Reconstruction.

After all, my concept of the battle has been endorsed by the greatest authority in the world on the Bismarck operation, Prof. Dr. Jurgen Rohwer of the Institute of Contemporary History in Stuttgart. My concept is also endorsed by the German Office of Military History Research in Potsdam, as well as by the editorial staffs of Chatham Publishing and the U.S. Naval Institute Press. Furthermore, my concept of the battle has been published and distributed throughout the world.

None of the above can be said of Antonio's Reconstruction. You say that Antonio's theory of the battle is how the story was more or less told for more than 50 years until my book was published in the late 1990's. That statement is not quite true, as I will explain.

I have been following the Battle of the Denmark Strait since May 1941 when I was a 16-year old high school student in the New York area. As word of the battle became known, I switched back and forth from the BBC and Radio Berlin on our Sears Silvertone short-wave radio to obtain the latest accounts of the battle from both sides. Since the end of World War Ii, I have sought out every book, article, and other accounts covering every aspect of the battle.

Of particular value were Captain Russell Grenfell's "The Bismarck Episode" in 1962, Admiral B.B. Schofield's "Loss of the Bismarck" in 1972, Ludovic Kennedy's "Pursuit" in 1974, the Baron's book "Battleship Bismarck" in 1980 and finally, Elfrath and Herzog's book "Battleship Bismarck" in 1988. I did not have access to the books by Fritz Otto Busch or Paul Schmalenbach at the time, but I have since read "Prinz Eugen im ersten Gefecht." My own concept of the battle seems to be more in line with those references than Antonio's Reconstruction.

I believe that you, and possibly others have a misconception regarding my concept of the battle. It does not hinge on the reversed photographs, as you imply, although that is certainly part of the overall story. The primary difference between the two versions of the battle is whether the Bismarck turned to starboard away from the Prince of Wales at 0602 to avoid any further damage to the ship and swing a wide arc behind the Prinz Eugen, leaving the cruiser exposed to heavy enemy fire for five minutes or more.

Antonio says "yes" and I say "no" to this. Going back to what has been said in the past, the Baron, whom I regard as the most reliable source of information on the Bismarck operation, makes absolutely no mention of such a turn, and neither does Vice-Admiral B.B. Schofield. Captain Grenfell and Ludovic Kennedy do make mention of torpedo avoidance maneuvers by both the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen, but neither indicates that the Bismarck also withdrew from the scene of battle to avoid further damage and "live to fight another day," as Antonio put it some time ago.

A couple of months back, Antonio posted some Paul Schmalenbach material on the Denmark Strait. including the battle diagram for his 1971 article on the Prinz Eugen for "Warship Profile 6." That diagram shows the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during the entire questionable period from 0601-0609. The diagram in Elfrath and Herzog's book is substantially the same and covers the same time frame for the Bismarck being on the port side of the Prinz Eugen. Other German historians also place the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during that period.

Back in December 1983, I stumbled upon the fact that the six starboard views of the Bismarck had been printed in reverse, and this did become part of my concept of the battle. But all it did was to reinforce what was already established from the Baron's recollections of the battle and Schmalenbach's battle diagram, namely, that the Bismarck remained on the port side of the Prinz Eugen throughout the battle. This is in accordance with my concept of the event, not Antonio's.

John Asmussen kept on referring to the "traditional" theory of the battle, but as I pointed out to him, there never was a "traditional" theory of the battle as such ever published as far as I know. I believe that "The Bismarck Chase" was the first book that ever attempted to break down the battle into small segments for easier understanding of the specific actions that took place and to present the battle photographs in any sort of chronological sequence.

If you know of anything contrary to what I have said above, I would appreciate learning about it. Thanks again for the earlier clarification of your position.

Bob

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Post by José M. Rico » Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:19 am

Robert J. Winklareth wrote: I have been following the Battle of the Denmark Strait since May 1941 when I was a 16-year old high school student in the New York area. As word of the battle became known, I switched back and forth from the BBC and Radio Berlin on our Sears Silvertone short-wave radio to obtain the latest accounts of the battle from both sides. Since the end of World War Ii, I have sought out every book, article, and other accounts covering every aspect of the battle.
... and in all those books, articles and other accounts you did not find any single place printing the battle photographs in reverse as you do.
Robert J. Winklareth wrote: Of particular value were Captain Russell Grenfell's "The Bismarck Episode" in 1962, Admiral B.B. Schofield's "Loss of the Bismarck" in 1972, Ludovic Kennedy's "Pursuit" in 1974, the Baron's book "Battleship Bismarck" in 1980 and finally, Elfrath and Herzog's book "Battleship Bismarck" in 1988. I did not have access to the books by Fritz Otto Busch or Paul Schmalenbach at the time, but I have since read "Prinz Eugen im ersten Gefecht." My own concept of the battle seems to be more in line with those references than Antonio's Reconstruction.
I don't think so, since none of those references say anything about photographs being printed in reverse.
Robert J. Winklareth wrote:I believe that you, and possibly others have a misconception regarding my concept of the battle. It does not hinge on the reversed photographs, as you imply, although that is certainly part of the overall story. The primary difference between the two versions of the battle is whether the Bismarck turned to starboard away from the Prince of Wales at 0602 to avoid any further damage to the ship and swing a wide arc behind the Prinz Eugen, leaving the cruiser exposed to heavy enemy fire for five minutes or more.
I disagree, I think the issue of the reversed photographs is the key point of your work in "The Bismarck Chase" and what makes it different from all other accounts.

As I already wrote in the other thread, I think Antonio's proposition to take this discussion off-line is a good idea and you should take it into consideration.

Sincerely,

José

George Elder
-
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:23 pm

Rob is correct in stateing the issue boils down to the...

Post by George Elder » Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:58 am

... Bismarck's course, and I, for one, find the reverse photo notion not well supported -- and not realley needed. To me, the relative position of the ships is not totaly dependant on the photos, although these are certainly germane to some of the issues being discussed here. The key point is the relative distance betwee the PE and Bismarck. I believe Bill calculated a figure of 2,500 yards, and some sources note it was 2,000 yards. The speed of the Bismarck is largely unknown, but for Antonio's ideas to work out -- the Bismarck has to be traveling at a very high speed. Perhaps 30+ knots -- if the initial speration between the two ships is 2,000-2,500 yards. I think this issue poses a problem for Antonio, but I do not think it support's Rob's case either. Reverse photos and hidden agendas are not the stuff I can depend on for any degree of certainty. No, this issue is still in play, and neither Antonio nor Rob has me persuaded -- at least yet.

George

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Bismarck initial distance and speed

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:41 pm

Ciao all,

to George :

as you know the photo reversed theory is the base of Bob theory of Bismarck not turning to starboard for the torpedo alarm issued by Prinz Eugen and continuing straight surpassing the Prinz Eugen to port side at 06.03 and been well ahead of Prinz Eugen at 06.09.

This as been demonstrated been impossible due to several photos analysis ( Bismarck details and presence of PG wake on Nh 69730 on Bismarck bow ) and by the fact that do exist 5 photos of Prinz Eugen ports side ( showing the British ships from 06.01 till 06.08 ) and there is no evidence of Bismarck nor her wake ( if passed ).

Moving to Bob :
Of particular value were Captain Russell Grenfell's "The Bismarck Episode" in 1962, Admiral B.B. Schofield's "Loss of the Bismarck" in 1972, Ludovic Kennedy's "Pursuit" in 1974, the Baron's book "Battleship Bismarck" in 1980 and finally, Elfrath and Herzog's book "Battleship Bismarck" in 1988. I did not have access to the books by Fritz Otto Busch or Paul Schmalenbach at the time, but I have since read "Prinz Eugen im ersten Gefecht." My own concept of the battle seems to be more in line with those references than Antonio's Reconstruction.
Not only I agree with Jose about is statement, but on Kennedy book there is the starboard turn, combing the tracks and comeback of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen clearly described ( and you yourself had wrote that recently on another post when asked, did you forget ?? ).

On R. Grenfell book read the statement on page 45 :
The Bismarck made no attempt to follow the Prince of Wales but was seen to alter course away as the Prince of Wales turned (at 06.03 ndr ).
Alter corse away means only turning to starboard as you should easily realize ( PoW was to port of course ).

On both F.O.Busch books ( Prince Eugen im ersten gefecht and The story of the Prince Eugen ) there is the clear description of the battle from German stand point and the turn to starboard, you know that there is a statement referring the painter ( Ltnt Schmitz-Westerholt ) that says that he needed to run back and forth from Port to Starboard to make his drawings because the British ships were to port of Prinz Eugen and Bismarck was to starboard. of the cruiser after Hood had gone, clearly stated in writings.
Just look at page 161 of the German 1943 edition, I can send a scan to you if you need.

Following the translation in English Jose itself explained to you 16 months ago :
Written by José M. Rico at 26 Oct 2003 01:00:43:
Hi Bob,
Honestly, I think that Schmitz must have taken a look at look at the battle film and/or some stills in order to complete his sketches. However, as Brian said, he must have remembered too if Bismarck was sailing from left to right, or at least if she was on Prinz Eugen’s port or starboard sides. After all he had just witnessed the actual battle. I am attaching a short excerpt from “Prinz Eugen im Ersten Gefecht” that has just been translated in English by Ulrich. What I find most interesting is that they saw Bismarck on Prinz Eugen’s starboard side. Please read below.
NOTE: To all those who have purchased e-book “Prinz Eugen im Ersten Gefecth” from this website (http://www.kbismarck.com/books/pgbook.html), please don’t ask me for the entire English translation of it because it is not available yet. When and if it is finally translated in its integrity you will receive a copy for free of course.
----------------------------
EXCERPT FROM "PRINZ EUGEN IN ERSTEN GEFECHT"
Since I did not see the explosion of our first opponent [Hood] myself because of the ordered target change, I asked the comrades after the battle who had been eye witnesses of this brief event. It was our artist, our painter and specialist [Julius C. Schmitz-Westerholt] who was able to describe the scene most effectively:
“When the alarm came, I was obviously asleep. After all, it was only about 0430 AM [local time]. Because of the constant air raid alarms, I expected that we would be awakened by an alarm. Anyway, I wake up promptly during every change in course or speed. I had worked hard on my sketches and I was dead-tired, and I must have slept like a log. I race topsides, obviously still a little dopey, to the starboard boat deck, past the 10.5 cm Flak, and then across from behind the catapult to the portside. I see the smoke clouds on port, and I run back and plow up to the bridge and up the fighting top mast to the admiral’s bridge. I did have a cabin there at one time, and I knew that I would have the best view from the signal bridge for preparing my sketches. Furthermore, I had my Leica around my neck, but I did not get a chance to take any pictures during the battle. I had to pay too much attention to the events, to remember the colors, the shapes and everything else, everything that one may need later on, in order to reproduce a picture of such a sea battle correctly and flawlessly. My school buddy and friend, the senior air force lieutenant, was already up there. We always called him the “Flying Master” [in English here], captain knows!”
Certainly I knew that and I listen eagerly. If anyone can, this artist certainly had observed in detail the colors and mood of such a battle scene. And he certainly did just do that.
When the specialist [the painter] looks across to the English through the large artillery binoculars, across to both battleships which are in a staggered formation bearing down with white foam at the bow, the pilot taps him with the elbow: “For heaven’s sake, they apparently feel as if they are terribly powerful!”
We all had a similar feeling, when these ship came toward us with point blank abandon, a typical English habit of underestimating the opponent! And then “Bismarck” fires, and the painter runs across to the starboard bridge wing, because the battleship is in a slight starboard staggered position in relation to “Prinz Eugen”. He [the painter] watches the unfolding picture of power that our flagship projects: clad in giant clouds of powder vapors which rapidly swirl aft because of flank speed, its barrels directed toward the enemy, the rangefinders and the entire superstructure illuminated by the fiery bright firing flashes. One, two salvoes burst away, then the specialist [painter] hurries back to capture a view of the impacts at the enemy.
--------------
Bob, you should know that the painter draw the scene of photo Nh 69728, the photo taken at 06.05 were the PoW shell falls on her stern, just refer to SIGNAL Article on this website.
That is one of the photo you would like to reverse and as you can read is wrong, than you know that the photo shows A turert guns to port clearly visible, so overwhelming evidences here.

So please go back and read the statements correctly as you are saying something not true as it is very evident ( everybody can double check easily on published books ).

The German book of F. O. Busch is available here in English perfectly translated by my friend Ulrich Rudofsky :D

Nobody ever wrote that Bismarck continued surpassing Prinz Eugen on port side ( unless you on your book ) and nobody ever showed any photo reversed.

This is not Antonio Bonomi opinion, those are other authors books and writings and as you can see only support my work, surely not yours with their statements.

In fairness this should be more than enough to change your opinion about the turn to starboard, we will see once again.


Coming back to George,

I had calculated before Bill Jurens the NH 69722 distance with several methodologies and I always come out around 1800-200 meters.

Now Bill Jurens took the lead on this and I wait too his final call, as I have 100 % trust on Bill judgement.

Still remember that everything must match with real measures and references, and Bismarck shadow is not an easy task, neither taking correctly the 2 PG plates and calculate the ratio.
The rest is trigonometry and mathematics that lucky me are laws and not opinions, so it is enough to measure correctly Bismarck shadow vs her 33 or 34 meters as her hull was deep on the water as one can easily see on that photo.

Bill Jurens recently called back his 2500 meters evaluation initially issued, we will see.

Bismarck speed was calculated by me looking at PG film and measuring the advancing of Bismarck toward last shell of PoW that felt ahead on her bow.
It is an easy exercise and it is enough to measure Bismarck shadow on the screen and wait until her distance from the shell water column is the same ( so are 250 meters more or less ), than you stop and read the counter clock on the film.
You restart and stop when Bismarck bow is there on the white water circle so she has travelled 250 meters.
You take the time difference and you calculate the advancing speed.

I did it and came out more than 30, almost 31 Knots, but you must consider tolerances, so 30 is a good approssimation currently.

You can do it yourself and let us now what you come out with.

So summarizing :

1) if Schmalenbach was right :
On 24, May 1941, I was in command of the battle alert watch since 0400. The portside battle watch had arrived at the night stations. The ship steered (a course of) 180° and traveled at 27 knots. The battleship Bismarck followed in our wake at an average interval of 16 hectometers, with whom it was agreed how the EM II instruments should search the horizon. {Prinz Eugen (was to take the sector) 270 to 90 (degrees), Bismarck 90 to 270°}.
telling 16 Hectometers or 1600 meters and I calculated on Nh 69722 the 1800 or 2000 meters, but he said '' interval '' so possibly Bismarck was zig-zagging a bit to avoid Submarines torpedo attack ( Hood and PoW did the same approaching ).

2) My Bismarck speed calculation is correct as I think.

Than Bismarck distance from Prinz Eugen when they turned combing the tracks at 06.03 and 45 seconds should be around 1000 meters ( 2000 - 1000 ) as I have plotted and evaluated and matches with photos and PG film too.

So, were do you see any problem ??

My re-construction is OK and perfectly matches with all the events !


But in fairness you should tell everybody here that with Bismarck at 2000 meters at 05.55 ( on Nh 69722 ) and at 1000 meters at 06.04 ( due to speed differential with PG 27 vs BS 30 knots ) Mr Winklareth theory once again is impossible as Bismarck cannot be surpassing Prinz Eugen on same moment at 06.03-04 been 1000 meters back.
He would need Bismarck to be back of Prinz Eugen only 900-1000 meters at the beginning of the battle and again this as been lagely demonstrated been impossible with Nh 69722, out of discussion by far.

In case of 2500 meters is of course even worst and more impossible.

I did not focused much on this since to me there are already too many prove that his theory is impossible and wrong and this was superflous.

I hope that he will read, control and check and hopefully changes his mind about the above statements, as I said if he does not show open mind to accept those as proven written facts that it is an useless discussion.

Ciao Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Status of NH69722 Analysis

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:11 pm

As Antonio noted, the exact determination of the range to Bismarck on NH69722 remains to be finalized. My first set of calculations, using four relatively independent methods, resulted in a most probable range of 2500-3000 meters.

At my request, Mr. Bonomi reviewed a draft copy of my findings, and by measuring things slightly differently, came up with numbers that would suggest a range approximately 500-750 meters less than this.

The equations to be used in the calculations are not in doubt; the differential appears at this stage to largely lie in exactly how one measures on the photograph. The image is quite unclear, and the decision of exactly 'which is where' is often legitimately debatable. And a small change in measurement -- i.e. a change of only 1/100 mm on the negative -- can make a significant difference.

In that regard, I felt it wise to withhold final findings until I can work through the full set of numbers again, substituting Mr. Bonomi's measurements for my own, and seeing if they also result in a fully consistent solution. With four methods to work through, and a heavy work schedule diverting me towards other things, this may still take a while to do. But I am working on it.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

NH 69722 measurement

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:41 pm

Ciao Bill and all,

THANKS Bill !! :D

You are always a very fair guy.

This is the approach everybody must take as cooperating in fairness is the key.

Keep on your good job, and take it easy, I trust you.

Ciao Antonio :D

George Elder
-
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:23 pm

George Elder

Post by George Elder » Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:17 am

Hi Antonio:

Having not seen Bill's methodology, and now seeing his change of position, I cannot make any conclusions regarding distance based on his opinion -- at least thus far. One hope the methodlogy used will be presented in detail in the fullness of time, and perhaps it is best to not offer summaries without presenting details.

I am not quit pleased with your speed measurement tool. You mention the following:

"It is an easy exercise and it is enough to measure Bismarck shadow on the screen and wait until her distance from the shell water column is the same ( so are 250 meters more or less ), than you stop and read the counter clock on the film.
You restart and stop when Bismarck bow is there on the white water circle so she has travelled 250 meters.
You take the time difference and you calculate the advancing speed."

The problem I have with this is that we have "250 meters more or less" being used as one criteria, and the placement of a white water circle used as another (a sort of marker). The problem here is that the circle is constantly moving with the direction of the current, and even if this current is only 2-3 knots and the time frame is very small, it makes the exercise very problematic unless these factors have been taken into account. I am sure you can see my concern here because even these small difference can have impacts on your calculations.

Overall, I am not at all certain the initial distance issue or speed has been resolved, and untill we get to the bottom of this -- I must reserve judgment about the competing battle scenerios. I think it is important to get the correct expertise to make the calculations that are needed, and I think we need people who specialize in this area. As it stands, we are reducing complexities, and I get very nervous about all that. Once we can feel safe and secure about the initial seperation between the two ships, and their speed, the more plausable scenerio becomes more clear.

As for reversed photos, I have seen no strong evidence to support that. Can I dismiss it? Not quite, but I am certainly not willing to embrace the notion.

What we need more than anything is an expert of what photographs can tell us -- someone with an advanced degree in this area and who has worked in a field that seeks answers to these question.

George

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

BS speed and distance

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:00 pm

Ciao George and all,

Bill work is as usual a very high professional type of analysis were his competences in photogrammetry are fully shown.
As he wrote 4 different methods been used.
I would like not to anticipate anything as I think once is done everybody will easily realize that.

The most difficult evaluation is of course Bismarck size ( height ) correct evaluation on the photo Nh 69722 and as Bill said even a very small error wil end up with large difference.

If one wants to realize the difficulties we are talking about that he can take photo NH 69733 ( the last photo of Bismarck taken from Prinz Eugen were Bismarck is on PG wake very close ) and try to determine were Bismarck hull is into the water to reproduce her normal 33 meters height from the waterline.
Difficult isnt' it ??
Than you can imagine on NH 69722 were Bismarck is 10 times smaller.
Of course if we were having a situation like on the famous Baltic refuelling photo were Bismarck is close and perfectly showed everything was going to be easier.
But that is Bismarck '' size '' perfectly showed on the water.

The '' trick '' one can use to simulate and measure correctly is to work on the full shadow ( width and height parameters ) and by referencing on known references ( B turret top plate, Admiral Bridge, Rangefinders etc etc ) create a shadow of Bismarck that compared with the original drawings will allow you to make the right call, or very close.

So you must have good scan 600 dpi of Nh 69722 and enlarge Bismarck shadow as much as you can, than compare.

Anyway, I just covered this too much and up until Bill will not be finished as you said better not to anticipate, in fact I was silent since weeks on this subject recently.

Moving to the speed ogf Bismarck I am sure you know and realize the concept of relative speed, YES the circle is moving with the sea current but same thing does for Bismarck on the water, so the relative effect is zero as we need only the relative speed.

But to cut this short I have made other calculations using the water column in the air at 1/3 of the advance of Bismarck toward the shell splash ( this will eliminate the sea effect ).

Some references for the ones that want to play with this and verify on PG film.

At 05.47.77 on the PG film counter Bismarck is '' perfectly '' at same ship lenght distance from the water column of PoW shell splash rising in the air ahead of her bow ( on my TV screen are precisely 15 cm ).

At 05.53.15 Bismarck has filled 1/3 of the distance ( now she is at 10 cm on my TV screen from the still very easily viewable water column ).

5 and a half seconds to fill up 1/3 of the distance with good references.

This basically confirms my evaluation of the full run that took 16 seconds starting at 05.47.77 and ending at 06.03.13 of PG film counter.

Now lets go into the mathematics with those references.

At 30 knots Bismarck will be making 55.560 meters in an hour, so 926 meters each minute and 15,43 meters each second.

Lets multiply 15,43 by 16 seconds and see hom much she would have been covering in theory,... 16x15,43 = 246,88

But I have evaluated Bismarck covering her full lenght on same time, so 250 meters .. not 246,88 meters.

Well this is exactly what I was telling you, I came out with a bit more speed than 30 knots.

Now you can evaluate the tolerances as you like, but I think at this point and with this evidences is fair to assume Bismarck traveling at 30 knots as the best approssimation available.

As far as the ' Reversed '' theory of Mr Winklareth and Bismarck surpassing Prinz Eugen on port side I think the evidences are so irrefutable that we do not even need to talk anymore about that, I just hope that Bob will realize what I am explaining him ( and I can go deeper with him as I proposed ).

Ciao Antonio :D

George Elder
-
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:23 pm

I tend to trust the views of specialists, and...

Post by George Elder » Sun Feb 20, 2005 7:04 pm

... that means people who have advanced degrees in the subjects at hand. I have no idea what degree level Bill has obtained. I believe he is a naval engineer, but what we need here is an expert of another ilk, as I have explained. But in that the methodlogy used has not been presented, and in that the numerical criteria being used in the interpretations is being recast, what can one say? Moreover, we have numbers being offered and withdrawn, and thus my trust in the entire process is very slim. I would turn the photos over to two or three qualified experts who do this kind of thing for a living, let them run independent numbers, and see what comes out. That might be the best way to go about this for we should not have 100% confidence in any single source.

George

Randy Stone
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Of course, I've been...

Post by Randy Stone » Sun Feb 20, 2005 7:38 pm

...reviewing the passages as of late and have enjoyed much of what has been written :lol:

But today, reading the latest passages I wondered if someone would catch a glaring detail...
Antonio Bonomi wrote:Moving to the speed of Bismarck I am sure you know and realize the concept of relative speed, YES the circle is moving with the sea current but same thing does for Bismarck on the water, so the relative effect is zero as we need only the relative (my emphasis -- what you actually mean here is apparent speed) speed.

Ciao Antonio :D
Obviously, Antonio, you did and this is what gives me confidence in your research. I, for one, do not believe you're short 49 cards or so out of the deck :shock: .

I couldn't believe that statement was made in light of the work you have accomplished.

Keep up the good work...I've remained an observer of these conversations for the reasons we discussed earlier. You know my position on these matters quite well.

Randy

George Elder
-
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:23 pm

Assuming the current is exerting the same force...

Post by George Elder » Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:17 pm

... on a 50,000 ton moving vessel as it is on ... bubbles? Moreover, Antonio, in which direction was the current flowing? If it was diagonal toward to course of the ships, I hope the needed compensatory tangental measurements were taken. Still, the main point is to get qualified experts who have experience in this area to do the work -- people with advanced degrees in photography or a related area. That seems like a good idea.

George

Locked