Bismarck firing procedures at DS

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

with their names, ... it is very difficult in most cases, ... since the majority of them are so " courageous " to use nicknames instead of their real names as you can verify, ... and that additionally tells who they really are, ... as we are progressively realizing.

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

and we know Mr.Dunmunro uses low nationalistic insinuations in his denial frenzy (he now speculates, as usual, without knowing FACTS and understanding NOTHING, that engineers made errors when an investigation is still open to ascertain that causes that may or may not have anything to do with the original project) !

Shame on him ! I do hope he will be banned from the forum to avoid to be forced to lower at his level of degradation to answer his bad taste insinuations.


If he has something to say about assumptions and calculated values in mathematics in the "annoying table" he can express them, else to SHUT-UP would have been a much better choice.


Bye, Alberto


P.S. still I don't see anyone among the deniers condemning his post.... this will make them partners in his crime.

You're the one making "...low nationalistic insinuations..." because you seem to be assuming that bridges only collapse in Italy...in fact engineers make mistakes the world over:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoo ... -1.4827748

It's quite a scandal in Canada...

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

at least Mr.Dunmunro seems to recognize he has said something very low and tries to find a way to get out of his own shame.....Excuses would have been much more dignifying, but these RN hooligans are unable to admit their errors.
In any case his error was good, as it made some more hooligans to show up and reveal their disgusting nature, supporting, finding "amusing" or just posting after his low insinuation.



Of course NO ARGUMENT countering the VERY "annoying table" that still stands as mathematics principles CANNOT BE DENIED by anybody and DEMONSTRATES that PoW effective RoF and effective number of shells per minute were in line with Bismarck ones, for the anger of all the deniers.

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg (70.88 KiB) Viewed 677 times

Bye, Alberto

[Bill Jurens]

I have inserted my responses to Mr. Bonomi's questions between asterisks below:

"since you wrote your comments above, ... just 2 straight questions to you :

1) Do you believe that PoW retreated at 06:13 and the Y turret jammed BEFORE that turn away 160° making smoke ?

*** I believe that P.O.W. turned away almost immediately after receiving several serious hits from Bismarck and Prinz Eugen in rapid succession, probably in the vicinity of 0603. I believe that the 0613 time essentially refers to the effective end of the engagement itself, i.e. at what amounted to 'cease fire' or 'out of effective range'. I don't think there is enough evidence -- at least from my files -- to determine exactly when Y turret jammed or how long it might have taken to rectify the problem, but my suspicion (and it is no more than that) is that it occurred during the period when Prince of Wales was under heavy fire during the turn-away, perhaps due to the unexpected forces resulting from the rather heavy maneuvering. So, if a binary reply, i.e. 'YES' or 'NO' is required, I would reluctantly choose "No" for the 0613 retreat time, and "No" for the jam occurring before the turn-away. I don't think the request for a binary response enables a fully reasonable and thought-out answer. ***

2) Do you believe that Suffolk and Norfolk from 05:30 until 06:30 where always at more than 15 sea miles from the enemy that morning ?

*** I don't really know. Useful track charts, if any were created aboard the cruisers, etc., at all don't seem to have survived, making any realistic attempts at reconstruction somewhat problematical at best. My sense of it has always been that the British cruisers were -- almost regardless of range -- expected to keep out of the fight and only support by reporting on fall of shot from Hood and Prince of Wales if such were visible, and keep the Germans in sight should they attempt to disappear into the Atlantic. The general principle, employed in other situations as well, seems to have been to let the 'big-boys' slug it out while the cruisers and destroyers -- which could in most cases only complicate the tactical situation -- remained clear of the main action, to return only if and as required to finish off an already disabled enemy. So again, if a binary answer is required, though I feel it inappropriate, I suppose I would have to say "No".***

Hope this helps...

Bill Jurens.

[wadinga]

Hello All,

It is very good of Bill Jurens to take the time to contribute (again) to this little spat, and those who take what he has to say on board, will notice that the major thrust is that the continued allegations of British Conspiracy and Cover-Up are still not credible, in his eyes.

It is certainly utterly unreasonable to suggest that he does not have either:

It is crdible for whoever has an open mind and a minimal understanding of the war at sea in May 1941.

I would suggest anyone who thinks he does not have these characteristics reads his impressive body of work which lead to him being selected as the technical expert on the expedition which found Hood's wreck and which also visited Bismarck's. Then they might understand just how uninformed and frankly foolish undervaluing his opinion might be.

Specifically for this thread, and as someone who along with distinguished co-authors has studied the Denmark Straits action in great detail, he says:

To a certain extent this applies to the presentation of spreadsheet information as well, as the presentation of derived rates of fire to five or six significant figures, based largely on speculation regarding the original figures themselves defies -- at least to my mind -- mathematical sensibility.

Given his educational background and career, undoubtedly requiring considerable numeracy skills, his renowned expertise on naval gunnery matters and as someone who has actually been to the Bismarck wreck site, that should be enough. He recognises speculations/assumptions/opinions dressed up as numerical values in spreadsheets for what they are, as defying mathematical sensibility.

I personally am disappointed he has said:

Incidental snippets of film taken at the time, and since extracted from what amounted to propaganda films produced in Germany are, in practical terms, of little practical value. Isolated still frames of film, again taken more-or-less as 'snapshots' have been poorly archived, and reproduced in (quite possibly retouched) formats do not -- except perhaps in a few isolated cases -- permit significant analysis either of timing or content.

as I believe that there is some considerable value to be derived from them, based on their actual content and provenance, rather than them being hammered into a sequence purely to support a pre-existing intuition. But then we shall see what is presented in Mr Jurens and his co-author's next publication.

Although we have been encouraged to await some other publications:

Why not wait for the books to be published and discuss then ?

Once Antonio's defamatory volume has been published, like any Conspiracy theory, it would gain some credibility merely by being in print. Hopefully, any potential publisher will see how thoroughly his ideas have been debunked here, by a variety of honest contributors, and that publication will never happen, because there is no truth in the baseless allegations which would be presented.


All the best

wadinga

[alecsandros]

*** I believe that P.O.W. turned away almost immediately after receiving several serious hits from Bismarck and Prinz Eugen in rapid succession, probably in the vicinity of 0603.

Carefull reading of Capt Leach's explanation indicates that the decision to disengage was taken after Hood had been sunk. He does not mention enemy fire, or hits, as having had an effect over his fatefull decision.
"Decision to Break off the Action
22. The Commanding Officer of Prince of Wales in his report says:

"Some explanation remains to be made as to my decision to break off the engagement after the sinking of H.M.S. Hood - a decision which clearly invites most critical examination. Prior to the disaster to the Hood I felt that, together, we could deal adequately with the Bismarck and her consort. The sinking of the Hood obviously changed the immediate situation, and there were three other considerations requiring to be weighed up, of which the first two had been in my mind before the action was joined namely:-

a. The practical certainty that owing to mechanical "teething troubles" a full output from the main armament could not be expected.

b. The working up of the ship after commissioning had only just reached a stage where I felt able to report to the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet, that I considered her reasonably fit to take part in service operations. This was the first occasion on which she had done so. From the gunnery point of view the personnel was immensely keen, but inexperienced.

c. The likelihood of a decisive concentration being effected at a later stage

In all the circumstances I did not consider it sound tactics to continue single-handed the engagement with two German ships, both of whom might be expected to be at the peak of their efficiency. Accordingly I turned away and broke off the action pending a more favourable opportunity.""

I don't think there is enough evidence -- at least from my files -- to determine exactly when Y turret jammed

From Prince of Wales gunnery aspect report: "Turret Y: Salvo 20 - Owing to the motion of the ship, a shell slid out of the port shell room and fouled the revolving shell ring while the latter was locked to the trunk and the turret was training. The hinge tray was severely buckled, putting the revolving shell ring out of action. The tray was removed, but on testing the ring it was found that No. 3 and 4 hinge trays of the starboard shell room had also been buckled and were fouling the ring. The cause of this is not yet known. The trays were removed and as the action had stopped by this time, No. 4 tray was dressed up and replaced. The ring was out of action until 0825."

The salvo chart of PoW is well known , and clearly indicates that "salvo 20" had been fired after PoW disengaged from the battle.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "He recognises speculations/assumptions/opinions dressed up as numerical values in spreadsheets for what they are, as defying mathematical sensibility"

Ignoring the fact that Mr.Wadinga puts in Mr.Jurens mouth words he never said, because Mr.Jurens would never support Mr.Wadinga's mathematical ignorance (e.g. his miserable confusion between FACTS, assumptions and conclusions), while he "forgets" Mr.Jurens binary answers (triple "No") that IMO confirm the intentional "sugar-coating" done by Adm.Tovey in his despatches at point 17 and 19 in order to save the two timid officers, possibly it's time now to move ahead of the numerical table (so difficult to accept for the RN hooligans.... ) and get back to Adm.Santarini judgement (see posts below) about the "excellent" PoW gunnery.

Notable, from pag.54, the logical, clear and painful (for the deniers) reason why these hooligans still needs to believe that poW gunnery was poor....

Time to wake up from the novel and to look at TRUTH that will be revealed by the publication of our book. be sure Mr.Wadinga: you have LOST in your sacred mission and the facts will be revealed to everybody.



Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Santarini_pag.50_PoW_Gunnery_Performance.jpg (30.08 KiB) Viewed 647 times

[Alberto Virtuani]

Santarini_pag.54_Bismarck_Performance.jpg (45.83 KiB) Viewed 647 times

[dunmunro]

Of course NO ARGUMENT countering the VERY "annoying table" that still stands as mathematics principles CANNOT BE DENIED by anybody and DEMONSTRATES that PoW effective RoF and effective number of shells per minute were in line with Bismarck ones, for the anger of all the deniers.


PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg



Bye, Alberto

Perhaps you were trained that pulling numbers out of thin air, such as the numbers of salvos ordered by Bismarck and when, is a mathematical principle. Most people just call it lying.

As I pointed out earlier, PoW's log records open fire as 0553 but her log also states that cease fire was not ordered until 0611.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "Perhaps you were trained that pulling numbers out of thin air, such as the numbers of salvos ordered by Bismarck and when, is a mathematical principle. Most people just call it lying."

As already said,
no argument at all to counter the key figure, the solid 93 fired shells, that alone (without the number of ordered shots) demonstrates that PoW effective RoF and effective number of shells per minute were in line with Bismarck ones (FACT), for the anger of all the deniers...

I'm so sorry for these RN hooligans : had Bismarck been able to fire more shells than 93, they still would be allowed to believe their loved version of the story, sweetened by Adm.Tovey at his point 17 and 19, to protect the two officers that could have been accused of dereliction of their duty.

Dunmunro wrote: "As I pointed out earlier, PoW's log records open fire as 0553 but her log also states that cease fire was not ordered until 0611."

So what ?
Is Mr.Dunmunro denying also McMullen "spreadsheet" with its duration of fire action ?



Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Ignoring the fact that Mr.Wadinga puts in Mr.Jurens mouth words he never said, because Mr.Jurens would never support Mr.Wadinga's mathematical ignorance (e.g. his miserable confusion between FACTS, assumptions and conclusions)

To a certain extent this applies to the presentation of spreadsheet information as well, as the presentation of derived rates of fire to five or six significant figures, based largely on speculation regarding the original figures themselves defies -- at least to my mind -- mathematical sensibility.

Your "assumptions" in the "Tedious and now Very Annoying Table" are the "based largely on speculation regarding the original figures themselves" that Mr Jurens described.

An assumption subjected to a mathematic operator is still an assumption. There is only one piece of real information on the Bismarck line -93 shots.

There is a thread regarding PoW's gunnery performance. This is not it.


All the best

wadinga

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Ignoring the fact that Mr.Wadinga puts in Mr.Jurens mouth words he never said, because Mr.Jurens would never support Mr.Wadinga's mathematical ignorance (e.g. his miserable confusion between FACTS, assumptions and conclusions)

To a certain extent this applies to the presentation of spreadsheet information as well, as the presentation of derived rates of fire to five or six significant figures, based largely on speculation regarding the original figures themselves defies -- at least to my mind -- mathematical sensibility.

Your "assumptions" in the "Tedious and now Very Annoying Table" are the "based largely on speculation regarding the original figures themselves" that Mr Jurens described.

An assumption subjected to a mathematic operator is still an assumption. There is only one piece of real information on the Bismarck line -93 shots.

There is a thread regarding PoW's gunnery performance. This is not it.


All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

I guess Mr.Jurens can explain the errors/approximations/number of decimal positions in the "annoying table" without the awkward help of an ignorant like Wadinga, if he is interested in a factual discussion....
He would never support Wadinga's ignorant claim that both 108 and 27 are different assumptions...

Wadinga wrote: "An assumption subjected to a mathematic operator is still an assumption...."

No it is a calculated value....
The only assumption is 108 and Mr.Wadinga refuses to provide his own figure to change it.....because NOTHING can change the conclusion: PoW gunnery was in line with Bismarck's one in terms of effective RoF and effective number of shells / minute. Try understanding instead of repeating NONSENSE.

Wadinga wrote: There is only one piece of real information on the Bismarck line -93 shots

and this alone demonstrate how good was PoW gunnery compared to Bismarck's one.

Game is OVER dear deniers, wake-up !


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Dunmunro wrote: "As I pointed out earlier, PoW's log records open fire as 0553 but her log also states that cease fire was not ordered until 0611."

So what ?
Is Mr.Dunmunro denying also McMullen "spreadsheet" with its duration of fire action ?



Bye, Alberto

We have as data points, Bismarck's open fire time (which occurred, but when is disputed) and ceasefire time as ordered by Lutjens (unknown) and PE's ceasefire time as stated in her war diary. We don't know when Lutjens ordered cease fire, only when PE recorded her own ceasefire. I am pointing out that, using PoW as an example, that the open fire and ceasefire times as recorded in PoW's log do not correspond to the cease fire times for salvo fire as recorded by her GAR. Again, to use PoW as an example we would derive completely erroneous RoFs and numbers of salvos ordered and when, if we only had the number of 14in rounds fired and her open fire and ceasefire times as recorded in her log.

You are attempting to derive 38cm RoF when you do no have precise open fire and ceasefire times and whether or not these times correspond to the actual times of salvos fired, and when, since we do not have Bismarck's GAR. We don't even have PE's GAR.

The only data point we have for Bismarck's RoF is the Baron's statement that it took 40 rnds of 38cm fire to sink Hood, and even this data is nebulous at best.