Thank you for your invaluable contribution in exposing mistranslation from German, and robustly challenging Antonio when he does it, especially when adds in fabricated details to make things look more convincing.
![Clap :clap:](./images/smilies/eusa_clap.gif)
![Clap :clap:](./images/smilies/eusa_clap.gif)
![Clap :clap:](./images/smilies/eusa_clap.gif)
Nobody (except you) knows why you have added (not mistranslated) the wrong and misleading term "dead reckoning".
This 1978 map was just an guesstimation from the photographs, further refined, apparently, by M-R and Schmalenbach in 1990.
These unwarranted additions created by Antonio to real material will undoubtedly comprise most of the "hundreds of evidences" to be presented in the future. Fabricated "facts" borne of intuition, hidden amongst real information.
If Antonio were in the least bit interested in the truth, rather than building a reputation (notoriety) by floating a Conspiracy theory based on an assault on RN veracity, he would submit all the german language material he has for proper translation by someone who understands maritime phraseology and has no ulterior motive for adding in extras to change and modify the material. It would also be very handy if the various illegible annotations by Brinkmann to the PG KTB could be deciphered. Maybe the copy in his possession is in better condition that the excellent Ulrich used for his translation here. If the letter to Raeder from Jasper, always assuming it exists of course, were given such treatment there might be much to be learned. He always boasts of the wealth of material he has from the Bundesarchiv, but if it is only presented in translated form, who knows how much is of German origin and how much Italian.
For Alberto,
Now, to try to be credible, Mr.Wadinga MUST tell us all at what time in his speculation Bismarck turned to 270° and how long she was on that course !
Look at the Baron's and Schmalenbach's map most recent map 1990, and see for yourself. Lutjens turns away to starboard at 05:55 in compliance with his instructions to avoid entanglement with British ships. Somewhere between the generated estimate of closure rate based on the inaccurate initial inclination estimate and McMullen's huge range reductions because of the long intervals between salvoes, he probably strikes lucky on salvo 6. (There is no Bismarck timing of hits received, there is no confirmation of a hit on salvo 6). Bismarck commences a swing back to port at about 06:00, which makes perfect sense as her opponent has just lost 50% of his force. The need to withdraw in line with orders has just disappeared. Unfortunately the cruiser has also turned to starboard and crosses the flagship's bow at a few hundred yards, so Bismarck turns further to port to pass clear astern of her.
Even you are now accepting:
which would mean 06:03 being wrong and the collapse of the timetable and all those speculative identifications of individual salvoes at 06:xx:xx (what no tenths?)that is at least until 6:00:30 - 6:00:40, AFTER Hood exploded.
All the best
wadinga