Bismarck firing procedures at DS

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Marc,

you wrote: "The deniers have reasonable doubts and very often it sounds interesting"

I would say that recently the deniers have proposed just nonsense, that very often sounds really funny, but it's a matter of opinions, I guess....



Hi Thorsten,

you wrote: "this chart contains distances, but these distances are not the distance as measured by the rangefinders, but the distance of the expected shell travel from the firing solution"

Absolutely correct, thanks.
This means that, even when a salvo hit the enemy, its marked "distance" is (approximately, with all the tolerances related to the normal spread of a single shell within a salvo) the correct one only from the point where PoW is at firing time and the one Bismarck is at the time the shell lands (when the calculated "future point" of Bismarck had been correctly estimated by the PoW firing solution).



Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Regarding the POW salvo plot
this chart contains distances, but these distances are not the distance as measured by the rangefinders, but the distance of the expected shell travel from the firing solution.

The ranges on the PoW salvo chart are the RF range minus the rate rate (target travel) during the time of flight of the 14in salvo.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

it does not take a genius to realize that thru the HMS Prince of Wales salvo plot ( the bearings ) one can verify and check the Bismarck main movements following the Prinz Eugen on the German cruiser starboard side, ... and this is the job I did back on 2005, ... so 13 years ago.

Photos and film, ... just as Schmalenbach and the Baron at first did on their last ( and best ) battle map, ... do the rest of the revelation about the Bismarck run track after 06:03, ... and also this one was a 2005 state of the art on my work.

I hope that the ones writing here in that the maps are useless to describe the events, ... did restore their ability to think right, ... before writing here in those absurd statements.

What I find ridiculous is that well analyzed events on the last 15 years ( I started on 2003 about this battle re-construction ) keep on coming back despite being well commented. analyzed and explained.

Either someone is really hard to understand, ... or it is just another way to mud the water while keep on changing subject ... always re-opening closed stuffs, ...

@ Herr Nillson,

being a "denier " on doubtful events, ... contradicting a way to read some stuffs still undetermined, ... but keep on providing value add on the discussion is a very positive attitude, ... and I am OK with it.

Being a " hooligan/denier " on events that cannot be refuted being demonstrated by existing documents and statements is a totally different approach.

I am sure that you do not have a " side taken " approach, ... blind and stubborn because you refute the truth to surface, ... and this makes you different from many others.

I see you challenging everything you are not convinced about, ... by stimulating a different thought sometimes, ... and I am OK about it, ... but not to try to avoid the reality to come up, ... just only to be sure and convinced that it is correct yourself.

Long time ago ( before the 2103 and the Articles of War thread opening ) also the others were doing the same, ... now they have changed attitude, ... and it is a pure " side taken approach " ... trying not to have nothing to be changed from the " loved novel " of 75 years ago.

History and the truth cannot be stopped, ... of hidden anymore.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

FALSE!
The Baron DID not follow Schmalenbach 1943 map.
His published map is this (my version of his book is in Italian, sorry) and it is fundamentally the same as Antonio's one (albeit much less precise and with some minutes difference), showing the turn of Bismarck to course 270° ONLY AFTER Hood explosion (after 6:02). The only difference is the course after 6:05, being 180° while in Antonio precise reconstruction it is back to 220°).

ERR, well actually my 1987 "revised and expanded" English language new edition has a different map showing Bismarck turning away before Hood's destruction and the legend Diagram courtesy of Paul Schmalenbach. The German force is shown returning to its 220T base course.

So when was your edition published in Italian and when was the German original last revised?

Anyway your version is clearly incorrect as Bismarck is not obstructing PG's fire on PoW at 06:09. We don't know when Bismarck ceased fire but we do know from the PG KTB that Bismarck was obstructing PG's fire at 06:09.

Speaking of 06:09, where exactly did this figure for the end of Bismarck's shooting come from again? I think you forgot to tell me. After all since it is the basis of the statistically invalid 14 minute sample of a variable ie rate of fire, whereas PoW's rate of fire is sampled at one second intervals/resolution (mathematically speaking 840 times more precisely) it is important to know. Otherwise your Tedious Table has only one certain value- 93 rounds expended.

All the best

wadinga

[northcape]

Hello everybody,

PG precise own track is available on her battle map.

PoW and Hood own tracks are available on PoW precise battle maps ( several ).

Bismarck track can be determined by her position at the battle start ( NH 69722 at 05:55 ) and her position after 06:03 and onward from the photos and film available.

1) "Precise" is relative here, since we don't know about their astronomical fixes vs. interpolation based on course and speed in-between (or at least I have not seen these data yet).

2) The last sentence must read "Bismarck track cannot be determined, but can only be wildly guessed. The information and timing of her position at the battle start were deduced from the assumption that NH 69722 was taken at 05:55. Her reconstructed position after 06:03 and onward is pure speculation based on untimed photos and untimed snippets of film with unknown speed."

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: " my 1987 "revised and expanded" English language new edition has a different map "

please post it as I did.....together with the other maps available on the book in its different versions.
The Baron worked with Schmalenbach before publishing his book and they corrected together the errors coming from his initial maps (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 195#p68342).
I suggest to read (and possibly understand) what Antonio has explained in detail here http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 240#p68475 and the final map agreed by the Baron and Schmalenbach (+Rohwer) after CORRECTLY interpreting the film and the photos timings (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 240#p68482).
This map was also used by Schmalenbach in his last book, and it is fundamentally correct for the German tracks (the only point different from Antonio's one is the course 180° of Bismarck after 6:05 that in Antonio's battlemap is back to 220° (but this does not change a lot the film and photos timing).

His fellow insulting denier wrote: "her position at the battle start were deduced from the assumption that NH 69722 was taken at 05:55. Her reconstructed position after 06:03 and onward is pure speculation based on untimed photos and untimed snippets of film with unknown speed."

NH 69722 was taken at 5:55:xx, any other timing is impossible (anyone should be able to count the number of cartridges expended on the deck of PG....
Photos and Film can be timed exactly using the PG own track (precisely known from her battlemap) + the relative position of Bismarck. Any other battlemap has been already proven WRONG (see above).



Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

I suggest to read (and possibly understand) what Antonio has explained in detail here http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 240#p68475 and the final map agreed by the Baron and Schmalenbach (+Rohwer) after CORRECTLY interpreting the film and the photos timings (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 240#p68482).
This map was also used by Schmalenbach in his last book, and it is fundamentally correct for the German tracks (the only point different from Antonio's one is the course 180° of Bismarck after 6:05 that in Antonio's battlemap is back to 220° (but this does not change a lot the film and photos timing).

His fellow insulting denier wrote: "her position at the battle start were deduced from the assumption that NH 69722 was taken at 05:55. Her reconstructed position after 06:03 and onward is pure speculation based on untimed photos and untimed snippets of film with unknown speed."

NH 69722 was taken at 5:55:xx, any other timing is impossible (anyone should be able to count the number of cartridges expended on the deck of PG....
Photos and Film can be timed exactly using the PG own track (precisely known from her battlemap) + the relative position of Bismarck. Any other battlemap has been already proven WRONG (see above).



Bye, Alberto

That map places Norfolk at approximately the same distance at 0537 as Pinchen's map. Note that no range is given for Suffolk.

[Alberto Virtuani]

...but we are not speaking of NF and SF. You had played the same trick with Antonio here (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 240#p68485).

STOP diverting discussion just because you are UNABLE to counter the German tracks and the salvos fired by Bismarck after 6:03 !


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Thank you for the links which show we have been exactly here before. in 2016.

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... &start=195

On page 14 of this very thread Antonio kindly reproduced "1990_Rechberg_based_on_Schmalenbach_PG_1971.jpg" which was revised , by somebody who was there. That is the version in my english language copy of the Baron's book in NEW REVISED edition.

Antonio also reproduced a rag-bag of other sketches, and refused to accept any was as good as his map because they did not agree with his speculation. He then presented 1978_Schmalenbach_Baron_Rohwer_map.jpg (51.03 KiB) as if it were the last word from any of those authors and then dived off into some theatrical soul baring because Herr Nilsson had decided he could take no more BS and was resigning. (Luckily he came back )

This made clear I continue with my work with the usual passion for the truth, ... just for it, ... I may fail the analysis, ... since I am surely NOT infallible, ... but you can be 100 % sure I will never fail the personal approach.

He then deliberately misrepresented the photos as showing single shots from PoW even though the Erste Gefechte and Bundesarchive say they are last shots from Hood "Ein lezten granaten der “Hood” die uber Prinz Eugen hinwegheul als weisschusse in die see fuhren. Im hinterland “Bismarck”


Having reproduced the 1990 map "1990_Rechberg_based_on_Schmalenbach_PG_1971.jpg" once only Antonio then never mentions it again, and cunningly diverts the 2016 argument away by only referring to previous 1971, 1978 1980 etc versions.

He even reproduces the legend for the 1978 version with Schmalenbach / Baron von Mullenheim-Rechberg / Rohwer names against it showing that they have reconciled the photographs with PG's track diagram.

Antonio knows the 1978 version is rendered obsolete by the 1990 version approved by the Baron and maybe Schmalenbach and Rohwer) who have clearly revised their opinions.



You have already have the "1990_Rechberg_based_on_Schmalenbach_PG_1971.jpg" and have agreed with Antonio to bury it as it contradicts your baseless assertions and renders obsolete all previous versions.

I suggest to read (and possibly understand) what Antonio has explained in detail here

I understand very well the misrepresentation and misdirection employed. I expect to see the same techniques employed again. Or maybe just insults.


You misrepresent with:

the final map agreed by the Baron and Schmalenbach (+Rower) after CORRECTLY interpreting the film and the photos timings

Is there a map by any of those authors later than "1990_Rechberg_based_on_Schmalenbach_PG_1971.jpg"?



I notice that again you refuse to supply the source of the "Bismarck ceases fire at 06:09" assertion which is the basis of your Tedious Table.

All the best

wadinga

[Herr Nilsson]

@Antonio

One of my major field of study was history, therefore I was taught to use historical methods and to be conscientious and objective. Knowing this skill-set of a historian I have to admit, that your kind of approach seems to me just improper workmanship. At the current state of your work I consider it as pseudo-history. I know this sounds very harsh, but it is really well-meant criticism. I hope you will not take it the wrong way.

@Alberto

NH 69722 was taken at 5:55:xx, any other timing is impossible (anyone should be able to count the number of cartridges expended on the deck of PG....

But you wrote:

Let's assume first salvo (Vollsalve, to correct bearing) is fired at 5:55:30. (it could be 5:55:05 or 5:55:55 of course as we don't have the seconds, but we are sure PG open fire minute is 5:55).
Flight time is 36 seconds @ 20Km, plus observation to find out....nothing (Jasper said it was not possible to spot the fall of shells of his first salvo). Salvo landed at 5:56:06 + plus observation time, it means the second salvo (again a Vollsalve) was fired at around 5:56:20. Flight time is 35 seconds..... Salvo landed at 5:56:50 and some shells were observable, observed and corrections were made according to them.

I count more than 2 cartridges behind Dora. Knowing brass in non-magnetic the picture was taken after PG's second salvo. That means NH 69722 was taken after 0:56:20.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "On page 14 of this very thread Antonio kindly reproduced "1990_Rechberg_based_on_Schmalenbach_PG_1971.jpg" which was revised , by somebody who was there."
while on page 17 we have the correct map agreed between the Baron, Schmalenbach and Rohwer, with the EXPLANATION why this map was chosen.....(http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 240#p68475).

Wadinga wrote: "Antonio knows the 1978 version is rendered obsolete by the 1990 version approved by the Baron and maybe Schmalenbach and Rohwer"

No, Mr.Wadinga only claims (without posting any evidence, as usual) that the Baron changed his mind and used another map after 1978, we should check his original German version of the book because in the Italian one there is ONLY the correct 1978 map agreed between himself, Schmalenbach (who used the same map in his last book) and Rohwer.

Waiting for him to POST the Baron English version map at least......if he is able.....

Anyway as the map from Schmalenbach in 1943 contains ERRORS in PG track, there is no way to propose it as the correct one, just to try to deny that the film is showing minutes after 6:03 with the only final intent to justify Leach timid retreat !



Bye, Alberto


P.S. regarding the cease fire speculations, I'm still waiting for Mr.Wadinga speculation about this timing. Lutjens ordered the cease fire at 6:09 (see PG KTB) and I don't see any reason why Bismarck should have received a different order.....

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nilsson wrote: "I count more than 2 cartridges behind Dora"

Hi Marc,
there are 3 cartridge in total in NH69722 from Dora and Caesar. At 5:56:xx they should be many more...
Therefore this is most probably the very first salvo. Anyway this changes nothing to this discussion about the German tracks

BTW, as you seem to be interested, please tell us all what you think about the film and the photos (729, 730, last one) being taken before 6:03.....



Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

@Alberto

As I said brass isn't magnetic therefore it's unlikely that one cartridge from Cäsar rolled across the main deck to Dora's pile.

In regard of NH 69729 and NH 69730 my current opinion is that they were taken very late in the battle after Bismarck had turned to starboard and then to port again. NH 69730 doesn't show a main artillery salvo but just a secondary artillery salvo. Additionally NH69730 is problematic for some other reason.
The so called last salvo could fit after NH 69730. What makes me wonder is that we can't see anything of Hood's and PoW's smoke, but possibly it's too far on the right, but this and another reservation are not very strong.
However, if this picture is taken after 69730 it contradicts - like 69730 - the last version of Antonio's battle map I know.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Marc,
IMO it's very likely that cylinders (cartridges expelled from the rear of the turret) roll in random direction......

Thanks for confirming that these photos were all taken after 6:03. What about the film ? Are you supporting the denier theory it was turned before 6:03 ?


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Waiting for him to POST the Baron English version map at least......if he is able.

Why would I bother you already have it.

You have already have the "1990_Rechberg_based_on_Schmalenbach_PG_1971.jpg" and have agreed with Antonio to bury it as it contradicts your baseless assertions and renders obsolete all previous versions.

Having reproduced the 1990 map "1990_Rechberg_based_on_Schmalenbach_PG_1971.jpg" once only Antonio then never mentions it again, and cunningly diverts the 2016 argument away by only referring to previous 1971, 1978 1980 etc versions.

"1990_Rechberg_based_on_Schmalenbach_PG_1971.jpg" is the map used in the 1987 revised and expanded version of the Baron's book, published in Britain by Arms and Armour in 1991. In the foreword he credits all the new contributors who gave additional information incorporated in this new and expanded edition.

Even the jpg title created by Antonio is designed to mislead, it is not identical to the 1971 Schmalenbach map.


Hello Marc,

What does "Ein lezten granaten der “Hood” die uber Prinz Eugen hinwegheul als weisschusse in die see fuhren. Im hinterland “Bismarck” mean?

BTW You are right,

NH 69722 was taken at 5:55:xx, any other timing is impossible (anyone should be able to count the number of cartridges expended on the deck of PG..

is typical of the dogmatic, biased approach. Other cartridges could still be in the back of the turret, hidden behind superstructure or rolled to the other side of the deck.


The PG KTB says nothing about orders from Lutjens at 06:09.

All the best

wadinga