Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

[dunmunro]

What ever happened to Antonio's analysis of Norfolk, Suffolk and Bismarck's positions here:

Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:59 am


Given Norfolk and Bismarck's diverging courses and the small speed advantage of Norfolk over Bismarck, it seems likely that these ranges would still apply at 0600.

[Dave Saxton]

I'm not meaning to censure anybody or to make them feel as though the need apologize. I know that no offense was intended. Alberto and others I certainly don't want to make your participation feel in any way unwelcome. I just wanted to point to a better way of expressing such ideas in English.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Dave, I really appreciated your suggestion and will do my best to use a more appropriate language. I know there are different judgements about the facts demonstrated by Antonio Bonomi on this forum and I do respect each of them even if IMHO the logical conclusion to explain the behaviours of the Admiralty after the battle can be only one....

Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Dunmunro,

The analysis you refer to is entirely dependent on the two bearings from PoW Plan 4, which have no provenance at all, and are consequently worthless. They are clumsily added to an existing plan and may be nothing more than guesswork based on estimates of Norfolk and Suffolk's locations. They are range AND bearings which cannot be visual (beyond rangefinder range) and Dave will confirm beyond British radar capability at the time. No PoW account including Brooke in the after DCT mentions Norfolk at all.

On such "facts" these scurrilous accusations rest.......

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: " On such "facts" these scurrilous accusations rest."

Hi Sean, YES, accusations are there based on these facts plus WW ridiculous contradictions, plus other Norfolk officers confirmation of the distance, plus the Baron measurement during the battle, plus Lutjens fear of the cruisers in view of a torpedo attack (not possible if they were more distant), plus the German rangefinder measurement at 5:45 giving Norfolk distance from PG at 200-220 hectometers......

Norfolk was there (in range for the 8") since 5:41 and she did not open fire: this is a fact and based on this fact accusations are well due.

If these facts are not enough for you, I still respect your opinion (I hope you respect mine) but I understand that even my excuses are not enough for you when you accuse other people to be "scurrilous": here I can't honestly do anything different......

Bye, Alberto

P.S. Scurrilous in Italian IS an offense.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

those accusations are based on a whole set of evidences ALL provided by Royal Navy official documents existing, some of them surfaced/released only recently and never fully considered the way I am doing currently.

I own no responsibility for what has been done by the Officers involved : I was NOT the one to rewrite 3 times on 2 weeks a battle report changing in all versions the facts, I was NOT the one to declare 2 different things in front of a Board of Inquiry, I was NOT the one to write wrong (false) statements on my dispatches, I was NOT the one making an invented "Plot" to be submitted to save an officer in clear difficulties for his own previous declarations.

This made clear, lets analyze the above map Duncan is showing you once again.

It is made on an official PoW battle map released by British Admiralty Battle Summary Nr 5. So unless you can demonstrate it is wrong (false), or you can correct part of it like I did with evidences, ... just like I usually do on official documents, ... than you should accept it as it is.

Time ago you wrote that distances and measurements were useless, ... and ONLY bearings were telling the truth, ... well that was the reason why I made it using ONLY the bearings.

There are 4 ( sides) + 3 (diagonal) = 7 bearings I have used to made it. ALL are out of official documents. If you do not agree please tell me which one for you is wrong and we can discuss about it.

For your convenience I list them here following :

1) From PoW to BS is 335 : it comes from PoW enemy report at 05.37
2) From PoW to Suffolk is 350 : it comes from that map itself
3) From PoW to Norfolk is 18 : it comes from that map itself
4) From PG to Norfolk is 76 : it comes from PG measurement at 05.35 ( F.O.Busch)
5) From Norfolk to BS is 280 : it comes from Norfolk 05.41 enemy interception report
6) From Suffolk to BS is 190 : it comes from Suffolk radio report at 05.33
7) From Norfolk to Suffolk is 328 : it comes from “The Plot“ Exhibit A – ADM 116/4352

Now you know that geometry and mathematic are NOT opinions and do have rules. Just apply them realizing that geometrical figure and you will determine all distances with a minor error factor on it. Everybody knows in fact that from PoW to BS on segment 1 of that figure the distance measured was 17 sea miles.

Enjoy yourself on the exercise now … and please tell me what is wrong ... or just accept it as it is.

Bye Antonio

[Tom17]

2 points I'd like your thought on Good Sirs:
1, Am I right in thinking everyone (in command chain) aboard Norfolk that day THOUGHT Bismarck was a lot farther away than she actually was? And if not why didn't someone point out the mistake!
So what was the point in opening fire at the PRESUMED long range without much chance of a hit?
2, Way, way, back when at school in art class I was given (arguably)one of the best pieces of advice ever re. drawing/painting:
'Draw what you see not what you know to be there' (tree trunks are brown? Tyres are black?...yeah right, go and LOOK)
could WW's second statement be a way of him realising he had over zealously embellished his first statement with views he 'couldn't see but knew to be there' and correcting himself.
Tom

[Alberto Virtuani]

Tom 17 wrote:"....why didn't someone point out the mistake ?"

Hi, unfortunately we don't know what was discussed on board Norfolk, if any discussion happened; however from the course altered away from enemy at 5:41 and again at 6:00, I do believe they were well aware to be dangerously close to enemy.....

Tom17 wrote: "could WW's second statement be a way of him realising he had over zealously embellished his first statement with views he 'couldn't see but knew to be there' and correcting himself"

As I already said, yes, it could IF there were not the other officers in command of his ship to say the opposite (see drawings posted in this thread from Capt. Phillips and Exec. Officer Luce at first board, plus Capt. Phillips drawings and declaration at second board when he even said to WW that the hit on Hood was close to the torpedo tubes..... Unfortunately for WW, there are several witnesses that are in agreement that the distance was 10 miles from Hood (and as a consequence 11 from Bismarck) and they did not "change their mind"......

Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Tom,

you are making 2 good questions. Here my opinions about them.

1) We do not know what they discussed among themselves on the Norfolk command platform about it. What we know is that on June 1941 RearAdm Wake-Walker, Capt Phillips, Comm Luce drew and signed in front of a board of Inquiry that they were at 10 sea miles from Hood. We do have those official documents and that inquiry report.
Do you think we can assume they all knew what they were declaring to an official admiralty board of inquiry ? I do.

2) It was not only Wake-Walker which drew what he saw. Also Phillips, Luce and Kelburn did it. It was only Wake-Walker to chaneg is mind about it on August, while Phillips confirmed, drew another better sketch and told teh inquiry he showed Wake-.Walker a Hood hull detail ( torpedo tubes ) that he coule have seen only if he was much closer that the new distance declared by WW ( 15 sea miles ), and by doing so he was basically reinforcing his declarations of being at around 10 sea miles from Hood as he signed for on teh previosu board.

Those the facts, to you the consequent evaluations.

Bye Antonio

[alecsandros]

... Any thoughts on why did Hood and Prince of Wales open fire from 23 and 24km respectively ?

[dunmunro]

Hello Dunmunro,

The analysis you refer to is entirely dependent on the two bearings from PoW Plan 4, which have no provenance at all, and are consequently worthless. They are clumsily added to an existing plan and may be nothing more than guesswork based on estimates of Norfolk and Suffolk's locations. They are range AND bearings which cannot be visual (beyond rangefinder range) and Dave will confirm beyond British radar capability at the time. No PoW account including Brooke in the after DCT mentions Norfolk at all.

On such "facts" these scurrilous accusations rest.......

All the best

wadinga

Ok, but my point is that Antonio's analysis shows Norfolk at 12nm at 0535. Norfolk was steering ~225d from 0535 to 0600 according to her track chart while Bismarck was steering ~240d from PoW's track chart so Bismarck and Norfolk are opening the range from 0535 to 0600, therefore Antonio's own analysis shows that the range at 0600 had to be more than 12nm, which is outside Norfolk's effective gunnery range.

Norfolk's track chart shows the range to Bismarck at 0553 as 16.5nm:
http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... &Nplot.gif

Using Antonio's chart, and plotting Norfolk at 30 knots @225D I get about 24300 yds range from Bismarck at 0553 and this range at 0553 remains the same even if Norfolk is at the 10nm range from PoW at 0535. 24300 yds for Norfolk is equivalent to PoW opening fire at ~31000 yds (.8 of max range) which is well beyond effective gunnery range without radar ranging.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

first of all what I have realized with that map is a snapshot ( an instant photo view ) of the overall situation of the 6 warships involved and NOT an analysis of their course and tracks.

So I kindly ask anybody in condition to add value or challenge my snapshot view to do it if you can. To me that is the best that can be done given what we currently have as evidences.

Than we can move forward with the course analysis if you like me to, where your reasoning Duncan is wrong because wrong was the course showed (assumed) by PoW of Bismarck in that map ( Plan 4).
Bismarck was sailing a 220 degree course following Prinz Eugen wake on her starboard side.
Consequently with Norfolk at around 225 degrees they were slightly converging while Norfolk was exacuting the " arc " .

But again, that is part of the problem of Norfolk conduct since before going into 225 degrees, doing the "outrageous arc", Norfolk was sailing a course of 240 degrees more strongly converging with the enemy.
Why did they change course after 05.41 ???

But as said, ... that is another story, ... what I need now from you all is to agree or disagree challenging this snapshot view at 05.35 based on all bearings coming from evidences.

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

first of all what I have realized with that map is a snapshot ( an instant photo view ) of the overall situation of the 6 warships involved and NOT an analysis of their course and tracks.

So I kindly ask anybody in condition to add value or challenge my snapshot view to do it if you can. To me that is the best that can be done given what we currently have as evidences.

Than we can move forward with the course analysis if you like me to, where your reasoning Duncan is wrong because wrong was the course showed (assumed) by PoW of Bismarck in that map ( Plan 4).
Bismarck was sailing a 220 degree course following Prinz Eugen wake on her starboard side.
Consequently with Norfolk at around 225 degrees they were slightly converging while Norfolk was exacuting the " arc " .

But again, that is part of the problem of Norfolk conduct since before going into 225 degrees, doing the "outrageous arc", Norfolk was sailing a course of 240 degrees more strongly converging with the enemy.
Why did they change course after 05.41 ???

But as said, ... that is another story, ... what I need now from you all is to agree or disagree challenging this snapshot view at 05.35 based on all bearings coming from evidences.

Bye Antonio

Antonio, if Bismarck was steering 220 at 0535, then the range to PoW at opening fire would have been about 21000 yds! This means that the geometry of the map at 0535 cannot be correct.

If we work back from 0553 and give Bismarck a course of 0220, this places Norfolk at ~14nm at 0535.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

again, you move on the course evaluation than backwards in order to try to change and move away a position of a ship, in this case the Bismarck.

Please, forget were Bismarck will move and go after this snapshot, at what speed and with what course, forget at what distance PoW will evaluate her to be at open fire and with what type of results after that evaluation. We can take a look at it and evaluate the matter on the PoW gunnery report after.

The question here on the table is now : given the 6 warships positions at 05.35 does anybody have anything to challenge on the geometrical figure obtained from evidence bearings, relative angles and calculated relative distances ?

Here for you my geometrical and mathematical results, any comment is welcome :

0535_bearings_evaluation.jpg (27.66 KiB) Viewed 833 times

Than of course we all understand that if 17 sea miles, which in this case has been used as reference distance for segment 1 from PoW to BS, is not correct, being either overestimated or underestimated, than consequently all other distances will change a bit too.

Bye Antonio

[Byron Angel]

BTW - I recommend viewing the Smithsonian television documentary on the loss of RMS Titanic. It gives a very good presentation on mirage effects at sea and how dramatic they can be.

B