"Official" Version of Battle?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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 Mar 10, 2005 5:40 pm

Ciao all,

of course I add myself on the symphaty to Bill Garzke for what happened to him,.. I soffered a very similar thing last autumn too and I know the feeling :( .

I think that from my side I cannot do anything more than what I am currently doing to help with a good '' scholar '' educated approach the comparison between the works as they appear.

I am just trying always referencing to the evidences to help Bob on making his judgements and to update as much as he can his battle map according to his desire ( as I have offered ).

I think my last post was clearly on this direction as I was always asking Mr. Winklareth to make his judgements and his call and let me know for the updates required, simply providing suggestions based on the evidences, but allowing him to make the final call, it is his map.

Point 1 was clear and agreed been so evident and logic, points 2 and 3 do require an input from Bob, while on point 4 I was only providing the source to resolve the doubts he had.

As said several times I reinforce the fact that I will not allow myself to re-enter any angry and nasty discussion.

If Mr Winklareth wants to talk about maps comparisons and updates and real facts I am here, otherwise I can do something different.

I am taking a pragmatic and very educated approach on this, and sincerely I suppose I deserve similar type of responses on a true educated '' scholar '' approach.

We should be comparing only real currently available DS battle data and not past personal attitudes.

Hope my post will help moving things on the right direction.

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 » Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:13 pm

Hi George,

In my concept of the battle with the Bismarck continuing on substantially a straight line course and remaining on the port side of the Prinz Eugen, the Bismarck could have shielded the Prinz Eugen, at least partially, for six minutes or more. For two of those minutes, the Prinz Eugen would have been completely behind the Bismarck, affording full protection for the cruiser.

The Bismarck would have partially protected the Prinz Eugen for two additional minutes after the bow of the Bismarck came in line with the stern of the Prinz Eugen and for two further minutes before the stern of the Bismarck came in line with the bow of the Prinz Eugen. The smoke from the Bismarck firing her guns and possibly even from her funnel would have obscured the Prinz Eugen from the gunners of the Prince of Wales even longer.

Of course even under those conditions, the Prinz Eugen would not have been protected from "overs" of sufficient range to hit the Prinz Eugen behind the Bismarck. Two of the photographs in question show splashes from 14-inch shells hitting the water between the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. But then, in war, one can never be completely safe anywhere.

Bob

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

Post by Robert J. Winklareth » Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:12 pm

Hi all,

In his posting of 8 March, Antonio made some points which I would like to address. I am pleased that Antonio has made a commitment not to engage in any more personal attacks as he has done in the past. I would hope that this pledge would extend to web masters and other members of the forum in addition to myself. As I had said before, telling the truth of what happened in the past or challenging a person's point of view is not an "attack" per se as Antonio would now have everyone believe.

The matter of the separation between the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen is still under discussion, and I do not have a final position in the matter. Simple mathematics makes it appear to be 900-1000 yards, but my mind is still open on the issue. If any one else can prove that it is some other figure, then I will have to reevaluate my position. Antonio's points are well taken, but let's see what Bill Jurens comes up with in the way of a methodology for the analysis of NH69722.

I don't know how Antonio got 217 degrees as the course of the Bismarck in Phase I. The Prince of Wales Salvo Plot estimates the course to be 212 degrees. My own graphical analysis indicates that the angle of divergence between the courses of the two ships is about 5-10 degrees. That would make the course of the Bismarck between 210-215 degrees, which is consistent with the figure cited in the Salvo Plot.

The Prince of Wales Salvo Plot shows the track of the Bismarck to be substantially a straight line from 0552 to 0600 with only a slight bulge to port between 0556 to 0600. Antonio's assigning course to the segments of that slight curve makes it appear that the Bismarck is making wide turns at this time, which is not true. With 18 points of range and bearing data, the track of the Bismarck can be determined with a fair degree of accuracy even though the British erred in estimating the speed of the Bismarck to be 28 knots instead of 30 knots.

I really don't want Antonio or anyone else to prepare any maps on my behalf that can be interpreted as my final position in the matter. As I have said repeatedly, I have not as yet made a final determination as to the separation between the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen at 0556, nor the angle of divergence between the courses of the two ships during Phase I. I therefore categorically renounce any maps or diagrams prepared by others in an attempt to portray my final position in the matter.

As I have also stated before, these refinements in the data are not a prerequisite to determining whether the Bismarck continued on course to the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle, as I believe, or swung around behind the Prinz Eugen to be on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen, as Antonio believes. We already have sufficient evidence to prove what actually happened during the battle in the way of several first-hand eyewitness accounts.

The Baron was the Fourth Gunnery Officer aboard the Bismarck and was assigned to the aft fire-control station. Although he was fully aware of what was going on during the battle, he made no mention of any turn to starboard at the same time that the Prince of Wales withdrew from the scene. Some have argued that he may have forgotten that little detail, but really, is that very likely? I don't think so. Maybe some other details, but not the Bismarck turning away from the Prince of Wales at the height of the battle. It just doesn't make sense.

Then we have Jasper and Schmalenbach, the First and Second Gunnery Officers aboard the Prinz Eugen who had their sights on the Bismarck coming up on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle. As if that were not enough, we have the battle diagram of Schmalenbach which reinforces his observations that the Bismarck was on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle. Antonio claims Schmalenbach was confused when he prepared that battle map, yet it was consistent with his verbal account of the battle.

I'm quite pleased that Antonio brought up the Admiral Schmundt Report and quoted it verbatim for all to read. I had already responded to his demand for a reply some time ago on another web site, but I will go over it again for the benefit of any new members who may still be following this thread after more than 90 postings. It is a perfect example of the confusion that was created in the minds of German authorities and naval historians as a result of the six photographs that had been printed in reverse.

Here is Admiral Schmundt admonishing Captain Brinkmann for failing to position the Prinz Eugen on the lee side of fire, according to the valid tactical procedures that were in force. That of course meant that the Prinz Eugen should have been on the starboard side of the Bismarck during the battle since the enemy was to port. The six photographs clearly show the Bismarck on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen, not the other way around, so Brinkmann must have been at fault.

We all know that the Prinz Eugen turned to starboard at 0603, as shown on her Battle Sketch, purportedly to avoid torpedoes fired by the British force. But according to Antonio, the Bismarck had already turned to starboard on minute earlier at 0602. The Bismarck then supposedly sailed several hundred yards to the west toward Greenland before turning southwest again and coming back toward the Prinz Eugen , in accordance with the six port bow views of the Bismarck taken between 0605-0606.

Can Antonio or anyone else explain to us how Captain Brinkmann could possibly have positioned the Prinz Eugen on the lee (protected) side of the Bismarck when Admiral Lutjens had preempted such action by his precipitous turn to starboard a minute earlier at 0602? I asked Frank Allen some time ago whether Brinkmann responded to the charge in Admiral Schmundt's report, but apparently not. Antonio brought the matter up, so perhaps he can give us an explanation.

I began this topic with a simple request for information as to whether Jose had formally proclaimed Antonio's reconstruction to be the one and only "official" version of the battle. Jose provided that information, and that should have been the end of it. Now we have over 90 postings on this topic, mostly on irrelevant side issues. My position is as stated in my original posting under "Summation of Battle Phase I and Phase II," and I have nothing further to add at this time.

Enough is enough. I responded to Antonio's last request for comments from me on the points that he raised, and I would like to have this thread terminated. I therefore request Jose to end the thread on this topic now or at the earliest possible time.

Bob

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

Suggestion to close thread

Post by Bill Jurens » Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:05 am

I hope that the webmaster will choose to keep this thread open. Mr. Winklareth's participation is certainly desirable, but his withdrawal in and of itself does not preclude others from continuing an intelligent and productive discussion on these matters. Considering that the overall tone of the memos posted to date has been (at least by past standards) really quite civil, I can see nothing to be gained by closure, and perhaps quite a bit to be lost.

I must apologize and seek the patience of those researchers awaiting my re-analysis of NH69722. I have not forgotten the importance of this and do hope to get back to it soon. Sadly, this project represents only one of perhaps fifteen or twenty independent issues currently on my plate.

Bill Jurens.

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

On shielding the PE.

Post by George Elder » Fri Mar 11, 2005 6:44 am

Hi Rob:

It seems most unlikily that shielding the PE would have been at all in the Bismarck's interest before the Hood was sunk and especially after it was sunk. In the former case, preserving the Bismarck's potential while the range rapidly closed is a function of shells fired at him per unit of time -- and having another target available could potentially prevent a concentration of initial fire by the British -- which is exactly what happened. In any event, fire quickly shifted to the Bismarck once proper identification occured, and shortly thereafter the Hood was sunk. Thus both German ships could now concentrate fire on the PoW, and the PE certainly seemed to be inflicting damage of both British ships when given an opportunity. So I do not think shielding the vulnerable PE was at all a concern here given the tactical needs of the situation.

George

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

Post by Robert J. Winklareth » Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:29 pm

Hi all,

My primary reason for asking Jose to cut the thread on this topic was concern that the number of postings has reached nearly 100. I don't believe anypne outside of those intimately involved are even following this thread anymore.

In view of the strong interest in preserving the thread, I will withdraw my request to Jose and ask for his indulgence as we proceed beyond the century mark.

I honestly don't understand the sudden interest in Antonio's and my battle diagrams, which have been posted for more than a year now, and I can't see how they would contribute to a resolution of the basic differences between Antonio's and my version of the battle.

However, I won't step in the way of progress. If Antonio wants to plot my current position for comparison with his reconstruction, he certainly may do so. While I have been reluctant to allow this in the past because I am not yet certain myself of several aspects of the plot,I see no harm in his doing so.

The plot before 0552 is too uncertain, so I would like to start at 0552 when the Prince of Wales Salvo Plot begins. Use the Prinz Eugen Battle Sketch as the baseline with the initial course of the Prinz Eugen at 220 degrees. I have stated that the separation between the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen was 900-1000 yards at 0556, so to make things easy, mark the point on the Prinz Eugen's track where she was at 0555, one minute earlier.

That represents the position of the Bisamrck at 0556 with a separation between the two ships of about 900 yards. Then draw a line through that point at an 8-degree angle representing a course of 212 degrees, both backward to 0552 and forward to 0609, the point where the Bismarck ceased fire. I don't want to go beyond that because again the track of the Bismarck is uncertain.

That covers the critical area between 0601 and 0609 where Antonoo and I are in dispute. If a comparison of the two diagrams will help to resolve the issue, than I am all for it, but I am still skeptical.

Bob

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

Winklareth map

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:23 am

Ciao Bob and all,

OK, I am glad you choose not to withdraw and stop this thread and did provide your current position on the matter.

For this I applaud you showing fairness.

Now I got the precise responses I was looking for to update your map.

Those are :

1) 900 -1000 yards ( 900x0,914=822 meters or 1000 x 0,914= 914 meters ) at 05.56 for Bismarck back on Prinz Eugen ( so as you properly underlined about 1 minute of Prinz Eugen track behind the German Heavy Cruiser on her wake, it is enough to place Bismarck were Prinz Eugen was at 05.55 ).
For everybody to understand easily the concept I will remind that Prinz Eugen at 27 knots ( her sure speed ) was covering 833 meters each minute, so it is consistent and a bit more than the 900 yards.

and ...

2) Course 212° degrees as the divergent course for Bismarck starting at 05.52 ( from Prinz Eugen starboard side consequently ) crossing the Heavy cruiser wake at 05.56 been 900 yards back and moving on Prinz Eugen Port side to perform a straight line till 06.09 at 30 knots.

I will update your map accordingly eliminating everything before 05.52 as you requested and send it over during the day.

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 » Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:41 pm

Hi Jose,

In your posting of 24 February, you stated that I was the one who was ignoring the facts regarding the Battle of the Denmark Strait. I didn't think so, since in my original posting under "Summation of Battle Phase II," I presented 25 statements of fact that supported my concept of the battle, and I responded to 14 points raised by Antonio to justify his reconstruction.

Since then, Antonio has pressed me for a response to his posting regarding the Admiral Schmundt Report, which he quoted verbatim. I hadn't forgotten about the report; I just didn't think that it was really germane to the issue. After all, Admiral Schmundt was not at the scene, but hundreds of miles away at German Naval Headquarters at the time. His report, therefore, cannot be considered as a primary source document in the case.

When the report was written, Admiral Schmundt had far less documentation than we now have on the battle. He had no information from Bismarck survivors or from British sources, only the Prinz Eugen War Diary, her Battler Sketch, and the photographs that were taken during the battle. We all know that the Battle Sketch was considered to be worthless in trying to establish the track of the British force in relation to that of the Prinz Eugen, precluding an accurate overall diagram of the Battle of the Denmark Strait.

Schmundt obviously had the six photographs showing the Bismarck on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen, providing positive proof that the Prinz Eugen was not on the lee side of fire where she should have been in accordance with German naval tactical procedures then in effect. So Schmundt naturally blamed Brinkmann for not taking the initiative in positioning the Prinz Eugen on the lee side of fire, i.e., the starboard side of the Bismarck.

But according to Antonio, Admiral Lutjens preempted the Prinz Eugen from taking such action by precipitously turning to starboard on minute earlier and circling around in back of the Prinz Eugen, leaving the cruiser exposed to direct enemy fire. This is confirmed by two of the photographs showing splashes from 14-inch shells hitting the water between the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen.

Was it Captain Brinkmann of the Prinz Eugen or Admiral Lutjens on the Bismarck who was responsible for violating German naval tactical procedures in effect by failing to place the Prinz Eugen on the lee side of fire? It doesn't make any sense to me, but perhaps Antonio can give us a rational explanation of the situation to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Antonio seems to think that Admiral Schmundt's Report in itself is clear cut evidence that the Bismarck was on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. All that the report proves is that Admiral Schmundt had access to the six photographs that had unknowingly been printed in reverse. That's all and nothing more. If Antonio wants to delude himself into thinking otherwise, that is his business.

Anyway, that is now 15 responses that I have made to points raised by Antonio in support of his reconstruction. I welcome learning of any additional items that I may have overlooked, and I will surely respond to them. This, however, is just one more example to support my earlier observation that without the six photographs printed in reverse, and their interpretation as such by others, Antonio has absolutely nothing to support his reconstruction.

On the other hand, my concept of the battle is consistent with first-hand accounts by key eyewitnesses on the scene, including the Baron who was in the aft fire control station of the Bismarck, Captain Brinkmann, and the First and Second Gunnery Officers of the Prinz Eugen, Jasper and Scmalenbach. Schmaenbach's original diagram of the battle is in conformance with his narrative account of the battle as recorded in the Prinz Eugen War Diary in regard to the Bismarck being on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of he battle.

When are the other members of the forum going to wake up to the fact that the only reason why I am still around is that no one has yet proven me wrong on any statement of fact that I have made. I claim no credit for this since I accidentally stumbled on the truth 20 years ago when I first discovered that six photographs showing the Bismarck on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen had actually been printed in reverse.

From then on, every new discovery has just reinforced my position. When dealing with the truth, all of the pieces just naturally fit into place, and it therefore has become increasingly easier to defend my position. I often wish that it weren't so, in which case I could readily concede defeat and go on with the more important things that I have pending, but I feel an obligation to continue my stand for the truth.

I know that this seems brash, but I am getting a bit tired of defending the truth mostly by myself. There are other who privately support me, but who don't want to be subjected to the same type of verbal abuse that I have been exposed to over the last two years, and I certainly don't blame them. The recent exchange between George and Randy is another example of forum members failing to respect the views of others and failing to conduct the work of this forum in an honest, professional and scholarly manner.

Enough said.

Bob

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

Post by Robert J. Winklareth » Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:52 pm

Hi all,

I have responded privately to Antonio's last attempt to present my concept of the battle graphically. I provided specific instructions for him to follow, as noted in an earlier posting above. He had not followed those instructioins and I must therefore reject his latest offering. Hopefully, he will now do as I ask and we can get on with this exercise.

Bob

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 929
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Post by José M. Rico » Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:34 pm

Hi Bob,

Well, I think it all depends of what we understand for facts, right? Antonio's account is mostly in accordance with official records and first hand accounts, while your version of the battle is not. Perhaps you are not ignoring facts, but you are interpreting things, if not wrong, certainly very different than the rest of us.

I know you have been researching the Bismarck Episode for many years, but with all due respect Bob, at the time you published your book, you had not yet seen any original materials at all. It was thanks to people like Frank Allen, Ulrich Rudofsky, and many others including myself that all those records (KTB's, action reports, film, etc, etc) were made available to you and to the rest of the naval community. Those were the "facts" I was alluding to.

José
Last edited by José M. Rico on Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Circular arguement?

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:26 pm

Mr. Winklareth wrote...

"Antonio seems to think that Admiral Schmundt's Report in itself is clear cut evidence that the Bismarck was on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. All that the report proves is that Admiral Schmundt had access to the six photographs that had unknowingly been printed in reverse. That's all and nothing more. If Antonio wants to delude himself into thinking otherwise, that is his business. "

Isn't this just a circular arguement, what is commonly called "begging the question"? Using this sort of logic, ANYTHING that the report said could be used to bolster the 'reversed photo' theory. If Schmundt's report had directly supported the 'reversed photo' theory, then that could be take as evidence in support. So far so good. But in this case, because Shmundt's report is in apparent opposition to the reversed photo theory, then we are to suppose that that observation supports the reversed photo theory as well, i.e. apparently because it demonstrates how completely people had been deluded. Clearly, if logic is to be used, then one can't have it both ways when either way wins...

As a teacher of photogrammetry, a very experienced photographer, and a student of this particular action for many many years, I remain very highly skeptical that the 'reversed photo' theory is valid. There is probably not enough evidence remaining to render the reversed photo theory impossible -- and taking the above quote as an example, in any case, such evidence should it exist, could (and probably would) undoubtedly be interpreted as representing but one more example of how completely everyone had been deluded over the years -- but taking the overall picture into account, the 'reversed photo' theory, if not impossible, represents at best a very highly improbable hypothesis.

Bill Jurens

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

DS Maps and more

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:10 am

Ciao all,

the last version of Mr. Winklareth ( Bob ) map went out as promised last night with all the details contained on the previous ones ( timetable, photos reference etc etc ).

I have placed Bismarck at 900 yards back at 05.56, I made Bismarck on course 212° degrees from 05.52 straight till 06.09, I have eliminated the approach earlier phase.

Bob, please confirm that it is OK according to your view.

Regarding Vize-Adm Schmundt report I think my intentions had been not correctly interpreted.

Since Mr. Winklareth stated that doing certain manoeuvres by Bismarck versus Prinz Eugen and vice-versa were against '' German Navy standard engagement procedures '' and consequently not possible, I have used that document to clearly demonstrate to him that it was exactly what happened, not only possible but well proved been occurred.

Not only confirmed in writing by Schmundt, but re-confirmed by Adm Carls that even wrote a justification for that occurance starting the closure of the debate betweeen Schmundt and Brinkmann I suppose.
We must take in account that it was Adm Schniewind with another available document to definitively close all the debate saying that everything was OK and only more training was required.

The main justification as one can read was associated to the clear intention showed by Adm Lutjens to maintain Prinz Eugen on the line of the battle with clear orders given all the way thru the beginning of the engagement ( at 05.53 he stated they were engaging battleships and at 05.55 as he ordered PG to fire to the Hood ) and after with the order to change of target to PoW (at 05.59).

I will suggest Bob to analyze better Schmundt words as he is not blaming Brinkmann for the '' second part of the battle '' so after 06.03 and the turn to starboard due to the Prinz Eugen GHG torpedo warning ( he clearly refers to as well ), but he blamed Brinkmann for not having take the '' lee '' side of Bismarck immediately after having realized that a battle was going to occur so at the very early stage of '' phase 1 '' so at 05.55 or even earlier.

Brinkmann was ''safe'' about that only for 2 reasons historically supported by several evidences, ... the first one is that they thought ( on board Prinz Eugen ) those been cruisers, .. the second one is that he received clear orders to maintain position and speed and to take on firing at the British leading ship ( Hood ) as target for the main guns directly from the flagship ( Bismarck / Adm Lutjens ), .. those 2 things saved Brinkmann from Schmundt about been there from 05.55 till 06.03,..and as Schmundt wrote,..not only during Hood engagement, ..... but even after to engage Prince of Wales as we know happened due to clear Adm Lutjens orders.

Everything is written clearly, .. just read it correctly and properly associate the facts description with the map and timetable.

As you can see Schmundt was right as Prinz Eugen was all the way thru the battle '' phase 1 '' so till 06.03 well ahead of Bismarck.

The Sunderland airplane pilot report ( so another source of info and this time British ) was saying exactly the same thing.

So I do not see were the problem is here .
Prinz Eugen did not follow '' German standard engagement procedures '' and it is well proven with 2 clear written documents as well as with the Norfolk map at 06.00 ( Hood explosion ) that clearly shows PG ahead of Bismarck and sailing an In-Line course.

The real problem is : how distant was Prinz Eugen ahead of Bismarck at 05.56 and at 06.03 ??

To respond to this we have the 2 maps ( PG battle map and PoW maps ) that we all agreed been OK to be used as reference and the photo Nh 69722 to evaluate the distance given bearings and relative positions.

I have calculated ( estimate ) the distances between PG and BS was 2000 meters at 05.55 and 1000 meters at 06.03 and it is supported by the maps ( distances and bearings ) and by the photo Nh 69722 analysis.

For Mr. Winklareth PG versus BS distance was 900 yards ( 822 meters ) at 05.56 and almost nothing in longitudinal distance ( Bismarck sailing in parallel on port side of PG just 700-800 meters distant in lateral ) at 06.03.

So we both are saying that the delta speed of 30 knots ( for BS ) versus the 27 Knots ( for PG ) allowed Bismarck to gain around 900-1000 meters on Prinz Eugen from 05.55 till 06.03, but we have clear differences on the starting point at 05.55 and at 06.03,.. those are 1000 meters difference.

This is the real difference between our works and tracks during '' phase 1 '' of the battle and this is what needs to be evaluated.

In both cases Adm Schmundt was absolutely correct as you can see, as PG was sailing ahead of Bismarck most of the time NOT respecting the '' German Navy standard engagement procedures ''.

Before we move on the '' phase 2 '' of the battle after 06.03 there is another point that Vize-Adm Schmundt addressed and that does not fit with Mr. Winklareth version of the facts and it is the Prinz Eugen torpedo missed attack to Prince of Wales that should have occurred between 06.01 and 30 seconds and 06.03 and 30 seconds, so for 2 minutes at the end of that straight run performed by Prinz Eugen and just before her turn to starboard.

It is well reported by several Official German documents that they did have a clear torpedo launching chance, but they missed the slot.

Now how come they could have even evaluated that option if Bismarck was sailing aside in parallel between them and PoW ( the target ), .. can Mr. Winklareth explain how that fits with his map.

Now as you can see those 1000 meters make a lot of difference because everything is OK with my map and distances, but this does not fit at all with Mr Winklareth tracks and map.

In my opinion it should be beneficial if I add on both maps a reference of where PoW was during the battle as reference direction for main guns and torpedoes, so it will be easy to realize the firelanes and the potential torpedo lanes as well.

I have already everything available on maps, so it will take 5 minutes to do it for me.

As you can see we are still on the '' phase 1 '' of the battle ( so before 06.03 ), .. no torpedo ALARM yet and not turn to starboard as well by Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.

So Bob, do not run on '' phase 2 '' of the battle yet as I did not even started relating Schmundt report or anything else with that part of the battle.

We need to discuss well this part first and reach hopefully an agreement among us all, or at least clearly understand the '' KEY '' differences as I have done above.


Ciao Antonio :D

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

Let us take pause here...

Post by George Elder » Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:56 am

Before anything is concluded, let us see the FINAL reconstruction of Rob's map. Indeed, I'll await the final edit before making any opinion. This seems like the best way to proceed. As for standard German operating procedures in this tactical situation, what the heck are these? I've never read anything yet that froze any German comander into doing X, Y, and Z, in context B and Q, R, and T in context A. The only thing I see are broad guidelines that leave much up to the comander and his superior. Let us remain focused on the getting the map exercise completed, and then make judgements...

George

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

Comparison

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:00 am

Ciao George and all,

I agree !

Lets proceed step by step in a very pragmatic and analitical way.

There is no need to rush or to put too much meat on the fireplace.

The only thing that concerns me is that we are still talking something the readers do not see yet and consequently they cannot participate on the discussion so far.

But I do hope their waiting for things to show up will be payed back with a very good and productive discussion.

Meanwhile, waiting for Mr. Winklareth to formalize his agreement about the final editing of his map I take the occasion to post my one done on same fashion so at least the readers will have something to start looking at waiting for the similar one to come and been able finally to compare.

So as everybody can see the map are done using the Official Prinz Eugen battle map ( PG track is in Black color ) on top of which I have plotted the Bismarck track ( BS track is in Red color ).

The incremental ships position is on a minute base so you can always follow the ships advance referencing with the minute written on the track itself and consequently see how the 2 German ships positions were one compared to the other.

There is a scale done in meters ( 1000 meters = 1 Km ).

The Prinz Eugen advancing speed is 27 Knots and Bismarck advancing speed is 30 knots, so that is why you see the 2 advancing segments difference as in scale Bismarck covers more meters ( 926 meters ) than Prinz Eugen ( 833 meters ) each minute.

I have attached all the currently known photos for reference with their proper positioning.

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/forum_imag ... mi_map.jpg

So this is what you are going to see also done for Mr. Winklareth when he feels it is ok to show his version too.

Please feel free to make any suggestion you may think is useful for the discussion.

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 » Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:46 am

Hi Jose,

One last suggestion.

Perhaps you should study my original posting under "Summation of Battle Phase II" a little deeper before you make a judgment as to which version of the battle is supported by first-hand accounts and primary source documents. If the words of the Baron, Brinkmann, Jasper, and Schmalenbach don't count for anything, then there's no need for me to continue in these inane discussions.

Bob

Locked