Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by alecsandros » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:57 am

Byron Angel wrote:Visibility can vary, Alecsandros. Momentary local variations in the weather, time of day, direction of view relative to sun, dark versus light horizon backgrounds, atmospheric mirage effects, temperature inversions, localized mists, rain squalls, even shadows of passing cloud banks can influence local visibility.

B
I agree Byron,
things can change - and the weather was pretty unpredictable there.
I take the Baron's account with caution, as any other accounts. However, things add up: with a sighting from the Bismarck's aft tower at 5:45 or so, at ~28km, the Hood would approach at ~ 0.90km/minute, and it woudl be at 21.7km distance at 5:52.
19 kilometers at 5:55, and 15.5km at 6:00

And I didn't compensate for every turn the British ships made (which made the rate of approach slightly higher)

This also adds to Prinz Eugen's spotting, only after GHG contact was obtained, suggesting a range of initial spotting of 30km or less.

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

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:03 am

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto,

I agree with your analysis of the events evolution, especially with the final need to celebrate the victory with the delivered medals on October 14th, 1941.

In addition to remove the potential threat of an inquiry based on the available written evidences, there was also the need to clean up all the suspicious statements, and to substitute them with more acceptable ones mandatorily required to celebrate after, in October 1941.

Those were the main reasons why June 1941 analysis, statements and documents were progressively created/substituted in July and August 1941.
Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "Tovey, Wake-Walker and Leach had to reconcile conflicting reports with differing ranges and timings and they had to fight a war at the same time! ......The fact that inconsistencies remained.........doesn't imply anything other than the fog of war.
Well I would be 100% with you, had the truth not been available already from previous documents (see e.g. Leach own messages re. PoW retreat timing and conclusions of first board of Inquiry re. Norfolk to Bismarck distance). Starting from the Tovey's dispatches till the unrealistic "plot", we can see how things were changed and embellished to build a different version of facts. This is not fog of war, it is.... a smoke screen. :wink:

That's why your (in principle) correct statements don't match with a situation where facts were already clear but suspicions had to be deflected from 2 (or I would say even 3) high officiers to allow full celebration of the victory over the German Navy most powerful warship.

Bye, Alberto
@ Dunmunro,

Here you have what was written on June 1941, and you can read yourself how it was rated as far as precision, accuracy and reliability of the witnesses.
Now you can ask yourself why there was the need to change it since it was not so important for the declared purpose of additional analysis of Hood explosion reasons of the Second Board.
Why change Norfolk distance with a much less precise and reliable document like ADM 116/4352 Exhibit A " The Plot " really is, supported only by one previous witness (Wake-Walker) while disregarding Diagram B that was evaluated like this : " ... the evidence is considered reliable and this is borne out by the reasonably consistent statements of the majority of the witnesses. "
First_Blake_board_page_37_ADM116_4351.jpg
First_Blake_board_page_37_ADM116_4351.jpg (169.11 KiB) Viewed 708 times
First_Blake_board_page_38_ADM_116_4351.jpg
First_Blake_board_page_38_ADM_116_4351.jpg (215.7 KiB) Viewed 708 times
It has been an evident cover up, needed to celebrate a victory during war time, politically and from a propaganda point of view a masterpiece.
It rested for 73 years, ... since official evidences were released only on 1972, ... and carefully analyzed only recently.
This is what an average good historian should do instead of keep on re-writing unsupported data and fact versions.

Bye Antonio :D
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
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3097
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Dave Saxton » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:05 pm

The most reliable "hard point" we have for setting up a track chart is the range and time of PG opening fire on the Hood as reported by AO Jasper. This is more reliable than the British battle ending range, or the British open fire range, or all the enemy in sight range guesstimates. The accuracy of 20,200 meters at 0555 is confirmed by the accuracy of PG initial fire and by the fact it was derived from the most accurate range finding instrument there that day; PG's EMII. It would be an actual measurement. The measurement would be accurate to within 40 meters. This places Bismarck at about 22,000 meters from Hood at 0555. Jasper reported the range just before receiving permission to open fire as indicated by his instruments was 210hm, and would be reducing to 200.2hm by the time he received permission.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by wadinga » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:23 pm

All,

Since Antonio is reluctant to answer I shall supply the Suffolk-Hood distance as 26 miles from his inverted green triangle. If Suffolk can see Hood at 26 miles then Norfolk can see Bismarck at 16, or 18 or 19 miles and Hood and PoW can see Bismarck at 19 miles. We don't need extrapolating from theoretical US tables or what time the Baron recorded first sighting to guess what the visibility was. If Bismarck didn't see Hood until after Hood had transmitted the contact then that is because the German lookouts were slow and sloppy, or just unlucky.

The range at which Hood was destroyed is the most critical factor in all of this because the ranging between the forces at this time is the only thing which enables us to position Lutjens' and Holland's tracks at the right distance. Dave Saxton :clap: :clap: :clap: has just put this into context!

This was critical for Bill Jurens' study since he had the muzzle velocity and range tables for the 15" which allowed him to determine accurate angle of fall. Previous accounts had blathered on about shells "plummeting" through Hood's weak decks when the actuality was about 11 degrees from the horizontal. Jurens' considered opinion, having studied all sources was that the fatal distance was about 18,100m. The Baron quotes navigator Wolf Neuendorff as saying it was 18,000m.

This would be inconvenient for the prosecution since PoW then has to close the range by 4,000m (to 14,000m minimum range) in the 90 secs after Hood's destruction which is what they theorise is the time before PoW turned away. Even steaming at 28 knots directly towards the enemy, PoW can only cover 1200m. Even though Antonio has selected the lowest Hood destruction range estimate from PoW's report, it still not possible to get to minimum range by 06:01:30. :D

Just as Schmalenbach draws it in the Baron's book PoW continues to close the range for several minutes after Hood's destruction.

Another reiteration: both Hood enquiries were about the mechanical reasons for Hood's destruction. The only distances they were interested in were how far Bismarck's shells travelled in the ship. If this Grand Conspiracy had been at work they could have conjured up something more convincing than "the plot" created on the day before the second enquiry convened.

All the best

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

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3097
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Dave Saxton » Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:25 pm

I printed one of Antonio's track charts posted here and adjusted the range from PG to Hood at 0555 hours to 20,200 meters. (BTW, very little adjustment was required.)

Using the revised track:
Hood opens from 25,160 yards (23km) essentially confirming the ~25,000 yards open fire range observed from POW.
POW opens fire on BS from 26,250 yards (24km)
Bismarck opens fire at about 21,100 meters (23,080 yards) on Hood.
Prince of Wales turns away at about 14,000 meters (0601.5 hours)(from BS).
Hood blows up just longer than 16,000 meters (from BS).

I did not attempt to place Norfolk anywhere.
Last edited by Dave Saxton on Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Byron Angel » Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:27 pm

Wadinga wrote - "This would be inconvenient for the prosecution since PoW then has to close the range by 4,000m (to 14,000m minimum range) in the 90 secs after Hood's destruction which is what they theorise is the time before PoW turned away. Even steaming at 28 knots directly towards the enemy, PoW can only cover 1200m."


..... To put this another way, it would be physically impossible for Bismarck and Prince of Wales to have reduced the distance between them by 4,000 yards in 90 seconds, even if both ships steamed directly toward one another at flank speed.

B

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3097
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Dave Saxton » Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:00 pm

If you draw it out you can see it. What I did was print Antonio's track chart, and then made a ruler using an envelope edge and the Km scale provided on the chart to measure the distances to mark out the distance scale. Leaving the German track chart the same and off setting (keeping all courses the same) the British tracks chart enough to give me my 20,200 meters distance between Hood at PG at 0550, I then measured the distances at certain times. That's how it works out with the various bearing angles. (I guess one could offset the German track alternatively since it is relative from one or the other)
Using the revised track:
Hood opens from 25,160 yards (23km) essentially confirming the ~25,000 yards open fire range observed from POW.
POW opens fire on BS from 26,250 yards (24km)
Bismarck opens fire at about 21,100 meters (23,080 yards) on Hood.
Prince of Wales turns away at about 14,000 meters (0601.5 hours)(from BS).
Hood blows up just longer than 16,000 meters (from BS).
Doubling checking the range from BS to POW at turn away it may be closer to 14.9km (my graduations are simply pencil marks on the envelope). 90 seconds prior to that point in time POW was about 16.2km away from Bismarck.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3097
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Dave Saxton » Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:26 pm

Some other interesting things using this chart, at 0545 when the alarm was rung on the PG the range was between PG and Hood was about 30km. For BS to Hood at that time the range was about 31km or 34,000 yards. At the 0540 GHG report it would have been about 34km, or 37,200 yards(PG-Hood). If we go to 0537 the range between PG and POW was 36km or ~39,400 yards, or ~19.5 sea miles.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:37 pm

@Sean: very interesting considerations, however the 18 km distance of Hood from BS at 6:00 is not realistic.

We know PoW was firing her 13th salvo from 16450 yards distance (15041 meters) from BS hitting her . This happened just before Hood blew up.

How can the distance between Hood and BS at 6:00 be much more than this ?

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)

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

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:36 am

Hello everybody,
Alberto Virtuani wrote:@Sean: very interesting considerations, however the 18 km distance of Hood from BS at 6:00 is not realistic.
We know PoW was firing her 13th salvo from 16450 yards distance (15041 meters) from BS hitting her . This happened just before Hood blew up.
How can the distance between Hood and BS at 6:00 be much more than this ?
Bye, Alberto
You are correct Alberto.
Both PoW and Prinz Eugen gunnery reports, associated to their own maps provide good enough data to reproduce the battle track.
Once correct speed's and Bismarck plus Hood are placed aside PG and PoW the map is done with no big difficulties.
Dave Saxton way to proceed is correct and my recent map does have just minor ( speed ) adjustment compared to the one he is using.

Than I placed the Norfolk track in there with no difficulties, bearing 276 ( 96 ) from PG and 18 from PoW at 05.35.
5 minutes at 30 knots course 240 until 05.40.
15 minutes at 30 knots on course 220 until 05.55.
5 minutes at 30 knots on course 270 until 06.00.

The result is the Diagram B attached to ADM 116/4351 on the Hood First Board of Inquiry on June 1941.
Norfolk was at 10 sea miles from Hood and 11 sea miles from Bismarck at 06.00.
It was average 13, 5 sea miles while on 220 during the 15 minutes parallel run from 05.40 until 05.55 and it was at 14,3 sea miles at 05.35.

PoW to PG at 05.35 is a bit more than 19 sea miles, while Hood to Bismarck at 05.43 is 17,5 sea miles distance, so Hood was correct and PoW underestimated the distance on her enemy report.

I know that on my map BS+PG run tracks versus Hood+PoW run tracks are a bit more distant than reality, .. and I choose 29 knots for Hood+PoW ( Rowell stated 28 as well as the board ) ... but that is ok, ... no big difference ... so I am on the safe side of criticism about willingness to bring everything as close as I can.

The result is only one, ... the Diagram B is correct ... and The Plot is an incorrect map.

Bye Antonio :D
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
Wordy
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:43 am
Location: Rotherham, England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Wordy » Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:57 pm

wadinga wrote:All,

Since Antonio is reluctant to answer I shall supply the Suffolk-Hood distance as 26 miles from his inverted green triangle. If Suffolk can see Hood at 26 miles then Norfolk can see Bismarck at 16, or 18 or 19 miles and Hood and PoW can see Bismarck at 19 miles. We don't need extrapolating from theoretical US tables or what time the Baron recorded first sighting to guess what the visibility was. If Bismarck didn't see Hood until after Hood had transmitted the contact then that is because the German lookouts were slow and sloppy, or just unlucky.

The range at which Hood was destroyed is the most critical factor in all of this because the ranging between the forces at this time is the only thing which enables us to position Lutjens' and Holland's tracks at the right distance. Dave Saxton :clap: :clap: :clap: has just put this into context!

This was critical for Bill Jurens' study since he had the muzzle velocity and range tables for the 15" which allowed him to determine accurate angle of fall. Previous accounts had blathered on about shells "plummeting" through Hood's weak decks when the actuality was about 11 degrees from the horizontal. Jurens' considered opinion, having studied all sources was that the fatal distance was about 18,100m. The Baron quotes navigator Wolf Neuendorff as saying it was 18,000m.

This would be inconvenient for the prosecution since PoW then has to close the range by 4,000m (to 14,000m minimum range) in the 90 secs after Hood's destruction which is what they theorise is the time before PoW turned away. Even steaming at 28 knots directly towards the enemy, PoW can only cover 1200m. Even though Antonio has selected the lowest Hood destruction range estimate from PoW's report, it still not possible to get to minimum range by 06:01:30. :D

Just as Schmalenbach draws it in the Baron's book PoW continues to close the range for several minutes after Hood's destruction.

Another reiteration: both Hood enquiries were about the mechanical reasons for Hood's destruction. The only distances they were interested in were how far Bismarck's shells travelled in the ship. If this Grand Conspiracy had been at work they could have conjured up something more convincing than "the plot" created on the day before the second enquiry convened.

All the best

wadinga
A fiver says you get ignored
In the Highest Tradition of the Royal Navy - Captain John Leach MVO DSO

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:38 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote: "Both PoW and Prinz Eugen gunnery reports, associated to their own maps provide good enough data to reproduce the battle track.
.............Norfolk was at 10 sea miles from Hood and 11 sea miles from Bismarck at 06.00.
It was average 13, 5 sea miles while on 220 during the 15 minutes parallel run from 05.40 until 05.55 and it was at 14,3 sea miles at 05.35.
................ I know that on my map BS+PG run tracks versus Hood+PoW run tracks are a bit more distant than reality, .. and I choose 29 knots for Hood+PoW ( Rowell stated 28 as well as the board ) ... but that is ok, ... no big difference ... so I am on the safe side of criticism about willingness to bring everything as close as I can.

The result is only one, ... the Diagram B is correct ... and The Plot is an incorrect map. "
:clap: I think everybody is convinced now that the plot is incorrect. Does anybody still trust the "plot" ?

Distance of Hood from BS at 6:00 is much less than 18000 as salvo 13 from PoW (few seconds before 6:00) was hitting BS at 16450 yards as per PoW gunnery report.
If we don't intend to move Hood far from PoW (as someone did in 1941 drawing the "plot" to enlarge the battlefield :oops: ) , the distance at 6:00 can only be around 15-16 Km maximum and this match with Dave above measurements and Antonio map too......

Bye, Alberto

P.S. minimum distance of PoW from enemy is between 6:02 and 6:03 as per Antonio map. 6:01:30 is the start of the disenagagement manoeuvre and it took some time to have PoW on a parrallel course with enemy. Here again Antonio map match all available distances.......
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:46 pm, edited 1 time 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: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by alecsandros » Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:46 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Distance of Hood from BS at 6:00 is much less than 18000 as salvo 13 from PoW (few seconds before 6:00) was hitting BS at 16450 yards as per PoW gunnery report.
If we don't intend to move Hood far from PoW (as someone did in 1941 drawing the "plot" to enlarge the battlefield :oops: ) , the distance at 6:00 can only be around 15-16 Km maximum and this match with Dave above measurements and Antonio map too......
:ok:

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3097
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Dave Saxton » Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:02 pm

The ranges derived from the charts with the exception of the known radar and optical measured ranges at certains points can only give us the general idea. My method I will not claim as precise but was offered as means to get us in the ball park at least. Fine Precision is not possible I don't think. There are strong currents and winds in that Strait. Determining the amount of bottom covered by each ship must be mighty complex. Moreover, it looks to not be a linear rate of range closure, that is further compounded by course changes.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

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

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:41 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wordy & Wadinga,

responding your points :

1 ) – Suffolk position versus Bismarck is defined by the own many original maps I have found and I will use later on and by the PoW official maps I have already attached above.
I can anticipate that it will be something between the 9,5 sea miles ( the 17.600 meters declared by Fritz Otto Busch ) and the 14 sea miles declared by Capt Ellis at 05.42, immediately before he turned back sailing north away from the enemy. As said, I will do it on my new map after Norfolk almost done currently.

2 ) - The range at which Hood was destroyed is available on the dedicated and detailed map by Rowell ( PoW navigating Officer ) attached to ADM 116/4352 with Exhibit B, and it was 16.300 yards. It is further confirmed by PoW gunnery map by a close salvo to Bismarck at 16.450 yards ( 13th that did it BS ) and was stated during the Hood first board of Inquiry too being 16.500 yards on page 37 of ADM 116/4351.

3 ) - 18.000 meters at 06.00 ( equivalent to 19.685 yards ) is not supported at all given speed, relative course and previous measurements. That BS to Hood/PoW distance was reality before 05.58 battle time referencing the PoW gunnery map.

4 ) - It is useless to try to bring Hood back to enable PoW to advance some more minutes toward the enemy reaching the written 14.100 yards of her last salvo fired before 06.02 while already turning away in front of the enemy since 30 seconds. No one can play this way with PoW gunnery map, Rowell map and PoW Plan 4.
We already had one " The Plot " ... enough is enough.

5 ) - The maps and photos shows what PoW did. Ltnt Hunter-Terry described it very well to the First Board on Inquiry. Capt Leach himself admitted what he did on 3 radio messages and it has been long discussed before on this thread. In less than 2 minutes PoW was retreating turning 160 degrees to port making smoke. In case of doubts check available PoW maps and listen again to Colin McMullen BBC interview available on IWM.

6 ) – If the Second board of Inquiry was only called to analyze Hood explosion, why they changed a previous very reliable declaration of Norfolk distance from Hood realized with available official documents on June 1941 during the First Board using an incorrect map ( The Plot ) to do it on the Second Board.
But I like an explanation with a minimum of credibility here now, otherwise please accept the reality and admit what it was done on August 1941 with that incorrect document.

Bye Antonio :D
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