Bismarck firing procedures at DS

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by wadinga » Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:47 am

Hello Alberto,

Thank you for confirming the irrelevance of averaging KG V's rate of fire on the 27th:
where we averaged the rate of fire of a ship that ceased fire and re-opened fire several times:
which was one of the examples of exploitation of statistical misdirection you used in comparison with PoW, by comparing 2 hours of shooting with a few minutes.
During a 14 minutes engagement averaging is VERY VALUABLE:

is demolished by:

t was NOT the case of Bismarck at Denmark Strait as we have proof that Bismarck fired just more or less fast according to circumstances
In mathematics and statistics, the arithmetic mean, or simply the mean or average when the context is clear, is the sum of a collection of numbers divided by the number of numbers in the collection.

The crude averaging employed in the Tedious Table, because it has a sampling period 840 times worse than PoW's sampling, assumes a priori a bell-curve distribution around the generated mean value, for which there is no support whatsoever. The Spurious Table, which pretends to derive actual firing times does not respect a Bell-curve at all, with extreme values throughout. It has a large standard deviation and high skewness. Thus one disproves the other. This illustrates the limitations of letting a mathematical tyro loose with a dangerous tool like Excel. Of course, the only alternative to believing you are unaware of the basics of statistics is that you are deliberately trying to mislead................... :shock:

Thank you for reminding me my article needs a re-write now that 1941 evidence signed by Tovey showing there never was a Court Martial threat has emerged since I wrote it. All the authors who have parroted the CMDS story should rewrite them, however death will preclude this for some, although preface to new editions should include the fact that the authors were misinformed. Online references should certainly be corrected. :D

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2809
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:23 pm

Hello everybody,

Of course I have never compared KGV's 2 hours engagement, just the first 20 minutes (from 8:53 till 9:13) with a RoF of 1.7 salvos per minute vs PoW 1.9 (see KGV GAR), but this guy is too ignorant and arrogant (blinded by the anger to have been defeated almost on everything he said) to switch on his brain and think before posting nonsense . :kaput:


Mr.Wadinga is clealy unable to understand "elementary school calculations" (his kind words to me) but it would be worth for him to try to decide his own figures for the "annoying" table he hate so much (just because it mathematically demonstrates that PoW fired more quickly than Bismarck over a comparable time interval :lol:).

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg (70.88 KiB) Viewed 225 times

The inconvenient table is here, built following RN McMullen methodology. Please enter your preferred value for Bismarck firing interval (14 minutes is the only reasonable value despite other denier attempts to move also this figure...), and Bismarck ordered shots (104 was Antonio's 2005 figure, 112 is ok for me, 108 was used to make calculations, 96 was proposed and... ridiculed). Unfortunately for him 93 shells cannot be changed.

Please, Mr.Wadinga, go on, present your own version of the table make us all laugh ! with another enormity like the turn away for Bismarck at 5:55 !


Wadinga wrote: "Thank you for reminding me my article needs a re-write now"
Welcome, but it would be a waste of time: Mr.Wadinga can just wait for the next publication of the full story, when the matter will be closed once forever. :lol:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:52 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

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

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:30 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:23 pm
Hello everybody,

Of course I have never compared KGV's 2 hours engagement, just the first 20 minutes (from 8:53 till 9:13) with a RoF of 1.7 salvos per minute vs PoW 1.9 (see KGV GAR), but this guy is too ignorant and arrogant (blinded by the anger to have been defeated almost on everything he said) to switch on his brain and think before posting nonsense . :kaput:
hello Alberto,
Why is the statistics of shots fired put into debate ?
I thought this was a fixed fact ?

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2809
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:33 pm

Hi Alec,
of course it was, but, cornered by the evidences of the "sugar-coating", now the deniers feel compelled to debate anything previously established.

It's just an additional demonstration (after the insults and the mocks) of their anger for the end of the fairy-tale invented by Tovey, accounted + amplified by Kennedy and blindly trusted by them for 75 years. :lol:


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)

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:25 pm

The truth is always a bitter pill to swallow...

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

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by wadinga » Thu Sep 20, 2018 2:26 pm

Hello Alecsandros,

Welcome back to your own thread!

Are you the same Alecsandros who posted:

I read from survivor testimonies that Bismarck made course alterations during the initial stages of the battle of DS (5:53 - 6:00) in order to complicate Prince of Wales firing solution.

Are there any indications regarding the amount of course alterations done ? 10* ? 20* ?

And, following this, is there any info regarding the type of firing procedure used during the first time interval ? (5:55 - 6:00)
and
My opinion is that we do not have the required materiel to form a realistic opinion over Bismarck's salvo plot. We lack to much info... All we can do are approximations of approximations... based on incomplete , scattered and not necessarily comparable or original (non-edited) materiel...[/quote
About Bismarck's firing procedures? Has anything actually changed since then?
and
... IF we exclude the salvos fired in the film, we remain with a rate of fire of 66 to 72 seconds per salvo. That's slower than Iowa firing against Nowaki at 32km.

Maybe that's it - and we should take it as it is. But I am somewhat intrigued to see ~70 seconds intervals in a fight to the death, coming from a machine which could fire at 20 seconds intervals (and is filmed firing at 23sec).
You realised A & A were wrong long, long ago - don't tell me they have convinced you with all this Excel mumbo-jumbo? :D


Hello Alberto,
just the first 20 minutes (from 8:53 till 9:13) with a RoF of 1.7 salvos per minute vs PoW 1.9
One irrelevant comparison is much the same as another. Was the weather the same, were the same number of guns bearing the same, were radar ranges available- the list goes on.
built following RN McMullen methodology.
Exactly. He leaves out the period when his guns are not firing. His "able to fire" total includes adjustment to include only the guns that could bear. We do not know whether the same is true for Bismarck. You have generated your Tedious and Annoying Table with unproved assumptions. Your guesswork Spurious Table includes widely varying firing spacings for individual turret groups of 30 to 73 seconds. As Alecsandros pointed out "we do not have the required materiel to form a realistic opinion over Bismarck's salvo plot".
Unfortunately for him 93 shells cannot be changed.
You keep banging on about this. How many times do I have to tell you I am quite happy with it? I am not convinced by the Baron's 40 shells. Has anybody done an inventory? Is this a figure transmitted to base ready for restocking? No it is a statement from a bitter and depressed man fished out of the sea after his mighty ship has been sunk after a battle in which it did no damage at all. Rodney's guns did more damage to Rodney, than did Bismarck's.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2809
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:11 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "You have generated your Tedious and Annoying Table with unproved assumptions"
TOTALLY FALSE !
The only assumption used is 108 as ordered shots and Mr.Wadinga has been invited to change this figure (if he can understand the "elementary school calculation" behind it, of course). 14 minutes battle is the only reasonable duration.

Mr.Wadinga will NEVER be able to propose any different value instead of the unproven 108 because he is aware that 93 is the ONLY important FACT (that he is happy with), and that determine the conclusions available in the table. :negative:

He is extremely annoyed by the table because it proofs clearly how PoW RoF was in line with Bismarck one and this fact contributes to dismantle his beloved fairy-tale..... :lol:


As Alecsandros correctly wrote: "The truth is always a bitter pill to swallow..."
:clap:
(how true ! It looks definitely impossible to swallow for such a denier, despite mathematics and authoritative publications that even explained him why British have not recognized PoW gunnery perforrmance)



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)

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:25 pm

You realised A & A were wrong long, long ago - don't tell me they have convinced you with all this Excel mumbo-jumbo? :D

Hello,
In the mean time, no proof was offered for other salvo plots. 93 shots in 14 minutes is what the official German records say (Adm Luetjens radio message to Group West, and Prinz Eugen's log), and that it what it is. Where the records wrong ? We don't know. We only have them. I also have questions about the Baron's account (including 40 shots versus Hood), BUT, as time went by, I understood better the firing process of the Bismarck , and the key fact that Bismarck was filled with 95% green crew...

Also, bear in mind that I also wrote:

"
alecsandros wrote:
Fri Feb 05, 2016 3:22 pm
Hello,

While thinking about the battle between Bismarck/Hood, it occured to me how different the artillery of both sides fared.

Initialy, both Bismarck and Prince of Wales obtained roughly the same hit rate, but after Hood's destruction, the combination of terrible morale blow, and coming immediately after that, powerfull shell hits on board their ship, forced Capt Leach to disengage... and not to score more hits on the enemy. Bismarck capitalised on his rapid victory, and hit PoW several times from short range (hard to miss at 14km !). After that, with the smoke screen of PoW becoming effective, and torpedo noises (and bubbles !) reported by Prinz Eugen, Bismarck made a hard turn and no longer scored any hits.

The timings are not perfect, the salvo numbers/shots ordered are not perfect. I worked with approximations, and usualy I used Antonio's timings. Total number of shots ordered is the same as in his article...

Cheers,
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6842&p=67584&hilit= ... ted#p67573
"
Best,

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by HMSVF » Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:35 pm

swpz wrote:
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:04 pm
I'd actually take all records with a grain of salt mainly because these are battle conditions; humans are prone to extreme stress during such conditions and minute details, like the exact time aren't of relevance at the time. I singled out question 42 as I found it very interesting, PoW's records must be taken with a grain of salt due to the bridge hit which left pretty much everyone dead, as mentioned in Q42, blood was flowing down from the carnage above and had actually blotted out the track chart. This alone tells you that the chart may or may not be 100% accurate and as such, there is room for leeway. Rowell saying he was satisfied does not imply it is 100% accurate, it was simply accurate enough for him to be satisfied. The concept of "give or take a few" comes to mind.

There are indeed a number of questions that simply haven't been answered but I suppose the answers will never truly be found as the men who would know them took that knowledge to the grave. From British observations we have anywhere between 2-3 salvos for the first hit and 3-5 salvos for the killing blow. Whether or not Bismarck fired more inbetween is uncertain but I'd lean on not mainly because it would be very strange for the British to observe all the salvos and note when Hood was struck but somehow omit the other salvos that were possibly fired. PoW records give 2 or 3rd salvo straddled, the first fell ahead and was "absolutely correct for range", by the 5th Hood was no more. So the chances of Bismarck having fired more in between seems low given that the British counted a maximum of 5 prior to the killing blow.

On another note, I'm at a loss as to explain how anyone can tell whether or not Bismarck fired a "full salvo" or a "semi salvo". From the British perspective, Bismarck would have been over 20km away; as seen in the PE film the blast of those guns is truly something to see, but I reference a very specific portion of the PE film where we see PoW firing. How many guns did she fire? There is no way to know, we only know of the brilliant flash that one could easily see even tens of kilometers away. With this in mind, how can anyone be sure if Bismarck fired 4 guns or 8 guns? From the observations and on the film, it seems that Bismarck indeed only fired 4 gun salvos. But this is debatable as one can contest as to just what is a salvo to begin with?

When the British say that Bismarck fired a salvo, do they mean full salvo? Semi salvo? It wouldn't look any different at 20km away.

Now, if we presume that the timing is off and Hood may have been destroyed before 06:00 - maybe the battle didn't even start at 05:52 for all we know - then well, this shortens the battle time significantly - to about 10 minutes from 15. A shortened time would explain the seemingly absurdly low rate of fire observed in both British and German ships that day.

For what’s its worth I agree. Witness reports can be notoriously unreliable. Records can be unreliable. The common denominator is the human factor. It’s not that people lie it’s that they have seconds to take in an event and what they see . What they see or hear can often be an individual experience. The sailor stood next to you may experience something completely difficult. When HMS Invincible sank at Jutland one witness reported that he heard no sound but that a neighbouring matelot thought that his ears would explode. When Queen Mary sank one witness claimed to see the bridge crew and those working in the forward superstructure. This was an absolute impossibility - the forward superstructure ahead of “Q” turret had been completely obliterated. What he saw was the stern section as proved by the position of the wreck and the debris field. In more than one action a gunnery officer reported seeing a sailing ship serenely making its way between two combatants. Did they exist or was it the human brain playing tricks as it struggled to take in events?
This to me is the “fog of war”. Humans are not like the machines they fight,they are biochemical that work on a far higher plane than 20th century technology which is pretty linear.

IMHO any talk of fact is unrealistic. Likely probability is probably a far better description. Why ? Well it goes back to the human factor and the technology and practices of the pre digital age. All of the arguments put for and against work of charts (filled out by humans) and equipment that is analogue by nature and mechanical in operation (and serviced and with its results plotted by..... humans). Of course today things are different. GPS will plot a position to within a metre or less,digital technology will record hard data (as long as it’s programmed correctly) without fault.

Personally I think that a hard quantative approach doesn’t work,but neither does a purely qualatative one. There are too many variables,which is why I think that the term “likely probability” is more useful.

At the end of the day it comes down to individual interpretation of what was recorded during the events in those days in May and building consensus.As you will observe there isn’t consensus,far from it.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3734
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:15 pm

Hello everybody,

there has been long time ago a wide consensus ( apart Robert Winklareth and Vic Dale ) on the battle main parameters re-construction using both sides well know data.

At that time we had only the German tracks ( in particular the Bismarck one ) to be correctly re-constructed and showed, ... demolishing the reverse photo theory, ... and the British data were assumed to be well known from PoW data, ... this was 2005.

Just as Alberto Virtuani wrote a page back on this thread, it has been when I started completing the British side part of this battle ( on May 2013 ) with the 2 Heavy Cruisers ( Norfolk and Suffolk ) and the post battle disengagement by PoW, ... connecting them with the available documents and evidence is when the " hooligan/deniers " immediately started the offenses and the bad attitude demolition approach that is continuing today.
As everybody has understood since a while, the obstinate denial of Mr: Wadinga to accept facts and data is nothing but an extremist attempt to defend the honor of a couple of officers who acted timidly in action..... :lol:

Antonio's 2005 reconstruction was OK for him :

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

As well as the Court Martial request that he wrote in his article :

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/holland.htm

until Antonio highlighted an evident "sugar-coating" of the reports done by Tovey vs the RN Admiralty and the PM.

Suddenly they became "conspiracy theories"..... what a coherence and consistency.
This battle main parameters are now solid and nobody can try to demolish them, ... it will be only a pathetic trial with a defined ridiculous end, ... like the ones we are seeing lately.

No one can state that Sir L. Kennedy novel PURSUIT, based on Adm Tovey dispatches is NOT full of evident errors, ... because the real documents demonstrating the errors are available now, ... and the Admiralty already wrote that some data were surely incorrect ( 06:13 vs 06:03 ).

Bismarck fired shells are 93, and no one else can state anything different, ... like the Bismarck turning to starboard at 06:03, ... and not before.

Last but not least, ... I like Alecsandros statement :
As Alecsandros correctly wrote: " The truth is always a bitter pill to swallow..."
But no one can state that I never suggested to use the Maalox, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

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

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by wadinga » Thu Sep 20, 2018 6:56 pm

Hello Alecsandros,
93 shots in 14 minutes is what the official German records say (Adm Luetjens radio message to Group West, and Prinz Eugen's log),
Half of this one sentence is relevant and half irrelevant. Jasper in Prinz Eugen was told to stop shooting at 06:09. What has that got to do with Schneider in Bismarck? Does that say Bismarck fired continuously until 06:09? No it does not. Neither the Baron nor anybody else tells us when Bismarck stopped shooting. Actually Alberto does. Out of this kind of inaccurate inference, spreadsheets of interpolated drivel are generated.

14 minutes is the first assumption, unsupported by evidence. Your observation that the supposed timing of the film makes no sense with rapid firing when Bismarck and her target are both turning hard is still correct. That it would mean ludicrously long intervals between salvoes at other times is also correct. Unless Bismarck stopped shooting during the fabled 14 minutes. Exactly as PoW did. 108 is the second assumption. I'm even invited to make up my own nonsense value to be used in calculation:
Mr.Wadinga will NEVER be able to propose any different value instead of the unproven 108
You have said:
In the mean time, no proof was offered for other salvo plots
How could they be? You were quite right then and nothing has changed:
My opinion is that we do not have the required materiel to form a realistic opinion over Bismarck's salvo plot
With so little base data, one actual value "93" only, creating other "salvo" guesses for Bismarck would be utterly pointless. Hoever the lack of competition does not make A & A's assertions true.

BUT, as time went by, I understood better the firing process of the Bismarck , and the key fact that Bismarck was filled with 95% green crew...

So you now believe that when your ship is turning wildly, and your target is turning unpredictably and covered by a smoke screen you fire at your maximum highest firing rate very close to the measured AVKS trial, as you identified from the film, because you have a green crew..............?????



IIRC you left this thread shortly after you expressed surprise at seeing, apparently for the first time, the various maps that people who were there produced, and which did not comply with Antonio's creation at all.


Emotionally, I think you would like to believe A & A's bravely revisionist saga of the arrogant insufferably smug British victors manipulating the story, but logically, and when you have analysed their assertions in detail, you seem to realise (like everybody else does) it's a Crock of Steaming XXXX solely generated as a sensationalist money-making Conspiracy Theory. :wink:


I am sure Winklareth believed his revisionist theory, this thing was born out of an intuition of what might appeal to some and for which they would part with cash.


Hello All,

The MR-S map of 1990 shows Bismarck turning to starboard well before 06:00 and Prinz Eugen conforming shortly after her. At this time the battleship is firing at a rapid rate and observers in the cruiser (Lagemann and Bridge Staff) see the last shots from Hood landing near their ship. As the MR-S map shows, just about the time of her huge success in destroying Hood , Bismarck turns to port and Prinz Eugen is forced to cross her bows, having panicked over imaginary torpedoes, that Bismarck is unaware of. The cruiser turns to port to try and regain station but Bismarck is in the way of her target.


Some time later, an imaginary track plot of Prinz Eugen's course is created, leaving out any reference to the flagship's relative position. It is described as "worthless and useless" by it's reviewers.

All the best

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

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by HMSVF » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:12 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:15 pm
Hello everybody,

there has been long time ago a wide consensus ( apart Robert Winklareth and Vic Dale ) on the battle main parameters re-construction using both sides well know data.

At that time we had only the German tracks ( in particular the Bismarck one ) to be correctly re-constructed and showed, ... demolishing the reverse photo theory, ... and the British data were assumed to be well known from PoW data, ... this was 2005.

Just as Alberto Virtuani wrote a page back on this thread, it has been when I started completing the British side part of this battle ( on May 2013 ) with the 2 Heavy Cruisers ( Norfolk and Suffolk ) and the post battle disengagement by PoW, ... connecting them with the available documents and evidence is when the " hooligan/deniers " immediately started the offenses and the bad attitude demolition approach that is continuing today.
As everybody has understood since a while, the obstinate denial of Mr: Wadinga to accept facts and data is nothing but an extremist attempt to defend the honor of a couple of officers who acted timidly in action..... :lol:

Antonio's 2005 reconstruction was OK for him :

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

As well as the Court Martial request that he wrote in his article :

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/holland.htm

until Antonio highlighted an evident "sugar-coating" of the reports done by Tovey vs the RN Admiralty and the PM.

Suddenly they became "conspiracy theories"..... what a coherence and consistency.
This battle main parameters are now solid and nobody can try to demolish them, ... it will be only a pathetic trial with a defined ridiculous end, ... like the ones we are seeing lately.

No one can state that Sir L. Kennedy novel PURSUIT, based on Adm Tovey dispatches is NOT full of evident errors, ... because the real documents demonstrating the errors are available now, ... and the Admiralty already wrote that some data were surely incorrect ( 06:13 vs 06:03 ).

Bismarck fired shells are 93, and no one else can state anything different, ... like the Bismarck turning to starboard at 06:03, ... and not before.

Last but not least, ... I like Alecsandros statement :
As Alecsandros correctly wrote: " The truth is always a bitter pill to swallow..."
But no one can state that I never suggested to use the Maalox, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
There isn’t consensus on a lot of aspects as the multitude of threads and posts prove. As an outsider it is very obvious as to whether you are pro Kreigsmarine or RN with evidences tossed aside depending on where the initial bias commenced. Do you trust the Nazi propaganda machine or the perfidious RN. It’s the human factor again.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by alecsandros » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:17 pm

wadinga wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 6:56 pm
That it would mean ludicrously long intervals between salvoes at other times is also correct. Unless Bismarck stopped shooting during the fabled 14 minutes. Exactly as PoW did. 108 is the second assumption. I'm even invited to make up my own nonsense value to be used in calculation:
DO you understand what Seitenvorzündwerk is , how it works and how it doesn't ?

Otherwise, your opinions are a decent into meaninglessness.

You don't understand almost anything.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:28 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:17 pm
wadinga wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 6:56 pm
That it would mean ludicrously long intervals between salvoes at other times is also correct. Unless Bismarck stopped shooting during the fabled 14 minutes. Exactly as PoW did. 108 is the second assumption. I'm even invited to make up my own nonsense value to be used in calculation:
DO you understand what Seitenvorzündwerk is , how it works and how it doesn't ?

Otherwise, your opinions are a decent into meaninglessness.

You don't understand almost anything.
Instead of acting like a troll you could respond politely by directing readers to this topic:

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5752 (explains some KM FC terminology and technology including the above).

Of course it is obvious that Bismarck didn't maintain a constant output from 0553-0609.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3734
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck firing procedures at DS

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:30 pm

Hello everybody,

of course and Colin McMullen was firing ( please just look at the PoW gunnery plot Bismarck course track ) exactly at a ship ( Bismarck ) that was following the Prinz Eugen ( as showed on her correct track map ) and by Schmitz-Westerholt print ( both there outside looking at this battle ), ... but this is not so important for the above absolute ignorant and incompetent denier, ... unable to use mathematics and geometry as we all know by now, ...

... like it is not so important that two Officers of the Prinz Eugen confirmed the German cruiser map movements and the Bismarck relative position to her, ... plus one Bismarck sailor I have interviewed personally.

One of the 2 Prinz Eugen Officers was outside with his rangefinder on port side firing at the PoW with his 105 mm guns, ... so he knew perfectly where the enemy was, ... what Prinz Eugen was doing and where the Bismarck was in relation to his warship, ... and he wrote it on his report, ... that I have in original of course, ... but this is not so important for the above incompetent denier, ... :wink:

The second Prinz Eugen Officer was making ( ordering ) flag signals to the Bismarck from his position on Prinz Eugen, ... so he knew perfectly why and when he made the signal to her for the well known 06:03 Torpedo alarm executing his commander ( Kpt Brinkmann ) orders, ...

The Bismarck sailor was outside on the Bismarck starboard side aft taking cover, ... but he realized everything pretty well, ... :wink:

.... but this is not so important for the above " hooligan " living on his fantasy world of imagination and wrong captions, ... absurd maps, ... and loved novels, ... :wink:

Good luck for your work, ... I just wait to see it published to take a very good laugh ...

NOTE : I do not like or trust Nazi as well as RN fanaticism ( like the Hooligan/Deniers writing here in ).
That is exactly where your problem is now, because I do not trust 75 years of lies intentionally written to provide a nice " sugar coating " on what really happened.

It is obvious that you would like to push me on the " Nazi " side to take your obvious advantages now that you are cornered with the truth and with your shoulders against the wall, ... but you are simply wrong ( and desperately unfair as usual lately ), ... and this will NOT work.

I will kick the ass of the Nazi's just as I will kick the ass of the Royal Navy " Hooligan " fanatics.

Clear enough ???

Bye Antonio
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Post Reply