Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you wrote :
The Rowell map is probably incorrect anyway


Can you explain me why you assume it is wrong ? Based on what ?

It clearly state that Hood was sunk from 16.300 yards distance, equal to 14.904 meters, or 8,05 sea miles.

Rowell map

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVb.gif

Please notice that distances are in line with Rowell previous map at 06.00.

If we assume that the Rowell map is wrong for 1 minute, ... do we have also to assume the PoW Gunnery map is wrong as well :shock: ... but McMullen was not injured and his map was NOT full of Blood, or redone ... :think: .

PoW gunnery map

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVa.gif

@ Wadinga,

Sean, what is your opinion about PoW gunnery map ... since it shows exactly the Rowell distances and bearings, ... both wrong ???

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm

Opinion and mostly evidences welcome, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio, Bismarck's course was 220* not 212*. Bismarck has probably made no turns. So all the distances on the map are nice to read, but probably wrong.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
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 »

Herr Nilsson wrote:No, according Jasper the Flak joined between 0602-0603. PG turned away not before 0604.

27 knots for PoW is pretty unlikely after the hard turn around Hood.

PG was at 27 knots, maybe 28. Bismarck isn't relevant.
But you said above "Jasper was maybe wrong. "

But even taking 6:02 - 6:03 as 105mm gunfire, delta speed between Prinz Eugen and Prince of Wales was at least 25-30kts, if not more. That means 12 - 15 meters/second. In 80 seconds, the ships could travel 960 - 1200 meters from each other, so the Prince woudl have been at 16500 meters from Prinz Eugen (17700 - 1200), and not 18500 as the torpedo map shows.

===

So, may I ask you why did you thought about Prinz Eugen torpedo map in the first place ? And why do you think people of their time would fail to see that that map was wrong, because 185hm could not have been firing range for 105mm guns ?
[not to mention there are a host of gunnery ranges: maximum range (of a mount), effective range, ballistic range (of a gun)... the 177hm figure is surely a ballistic range. I very much doubt anybody anytime fired guns at ballistic range. Most sources indicate 80% of ballistic range as maximum range in which a target can be hit with small-to-moderate accuracy, but that's another matter. ]
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 »

Herr Nilsson wrote:Antonio, Bismarck's course was 220* not 212*. Bismarck has probably made no turns. So all the distances on the map are nice to read, but probably wrong.
... But according to eye witnesses and Prince of Wales gunnery map, Bismarck did a few slight turns... :think:
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I can take that since I have plotted on my map the correct Bismarck course of 220 degrees ... as well as her closing distance with Prinz Eugen.

But PoW hit 3 times Bismarck, so distances were NOT so wrong, ... anyway.

Your way to read Adm Lutjens message is incorrect since those are OPEN and CEASE fire by Bismarck.

The battle was fought at a much closer distance that 18.000 meters in the middle of it ... Hood was sunk at around 15.500 meters as I have already demonstrated you.

Reimann map shows wrong distances and it is correct on that way, since he failed measuring the distances NOT having a good rangefinder, and he showed it thru that map.

So, again, why Rowell map and PoW gunnery map are wrong according to you ?
What are in your opinion the 2 distances Adm Lutjens declared ( 208 and 180 hectometers ) ?

@ Alecsandros,

PoW speed was 29 knots ( Rowell wrote 28 knots for both see map above )

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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Herr Nilsson »

I'm just demonstrating that a lot of people saw a lot of different things. :whistle:
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Herr Nilsson wrote :"Bismarck's course was 220* not 212*. Bismarck has probably made no turns. So all the distances on the map are nice to read, but probably wrong."
I disagree. Whatever was the exact course of BS (we are speaking of very few degrees difference.....), I fully trust the distances in the PoW gunnery report just because.... they were hitting BS (salvo 6, 9 and 13) ! In addition, the gunnery map shows how PoW was constantly very close to straddling BS from salvo 5 (22100 yards) until salvo 14 included (16300 yards), fired around 6:00, so distances were pretty good.
After 6:00, the turn to avoid Hood blowing up started to affect her precision.
All PoW distances match with Jasper report on PG.

Therefore 208 and 180 hm can only be start and cease fire distances (5:55 and 6:09). I don't understand all the discussion here. Not speaking German, I don't see any way to interpret Lutjens words in one way or in the other and the above facts are giving the right interpretation to his words.
Herr Nilsson wrote : "I'm just demonstrating that a lot of people saw a lot of different things"
Well, here I would better say that a lot of people from both sides declared they saw a lot of different things ...... and I don't speak about Adm.Lutjens..... :lol:

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)
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 »

Herr Nilsson wrote:I'm just demonstrating that a lot of people saw a lot of different things. :whistle:
:D
... I remember a report coming from Rodney describing how the 3rd salvo of 9 guns straddled the Bismarck with 4 x 406mm shells, the other 5 perforating deep inside the ship and "probably causing carnage"...

So, indeed, people saw different things, that doesn't mean we should look for explanations of obviously wrong statements.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Herr Nilsson wrote :"Bismarck's course was 220* not 212*. Bismarck has probably made no turns. So all the distances on the map are nice to read, but probably wrong."
I disagree. Whatever was the exact course of BS (we are speaking of very few degrees difference.....), I fully trust the distances in the PoW gunnery report just because.... they were hitting BS (salvo 6, 9 and 13) ! In addition, the gunnery map shows how PoW was constantly very close to straddling BS from salvo 5 (22100 yards) until salvo 14 included (16300 yards), fired around 6:00, so distances were pretty good.
After 6:00, the turn to avoid Hood blowing up started to affect her precision.
All PoW distances match with Jasper report on PG.

Therefore 208 and 180 hm can only be start and cease fire distances (5:55 and 6:09). I don't understand all the discussion here. Not speaking German, I don't see any way to interpret Lutjens words in one way or in the other and the above facts are giving the right interpretation to his words.
speaking of facts:
18000m.jpg
(116.21 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Herr Nilsson: sorry I don't understand.....
What are you meaning ? Please explain.
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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by wadinga »

Hi Antonio,

First off please could you post the whole of the Norfolk log for the interesting period, not just two lines to highlight another Wake-Walker inconsistency? :pray:

We know the Gunnery Map is flawed, since the fire control table took a direct input from the gyrocompass, and the turn to avoid the wreck mentioned by both Leach and Rowell is not recorded at all. I also point out again that avoiding Hood would have been unnecessary unless PoW had already turned after her to port, so this is another turn not recorded on the Gunnery map. This graphical representation is clearly not a faithful reproduction of inputs to the fire control system. For every degree of ship's heading change, the fire control table would have to move the turrets a degree opposite to compensate and deliver the azimuths shown on the map. I don't believe the AFCT produced a geographical plot like this.

Marc has observed that the inclination estimate made by McMullen's team was wrong due to mis-estimating Bismarck's course. (Despite accurate 220 report from cruisers) So the FC table was always applying the wrong rate. PoW's gunners have interpreted a meandering course for their target, and there may have been some evasive manouevring, but as Marc observes, perceptions are not always reality.

Paul Cadogan has observed, as have I, that the salvo-to-salvo corrections made by PoW don't seem to fit the drawn tracks very well. Dropping the range by a further 1000 yds when your last salvo was already short seems a bit strange, if you are already supposed to be "turning away" (actually just reducing your closing rate).

The confusion over PoW's inclination (ie course) perceived by Reimann is further evidence these these turns, unrecorded on the Gunnery Plot, actually happened. If Rowell's map is truly definitive, why is it different to the Gunnery Map, and why does it minimise turns witnesses saw?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

you wrote to Herr Nilsson :
Thanks for once again posting full details of original documents (i.e. not trimmed to the minimum in case contradicting information is shown).
and now to me :
First off please could you post the whole of the Norfolk log for the interesting period, not just two lines to highlight another Wake-Walker inconsistency ? :pray:
Sorry my friend, it is NOT my style and never will to avoid posting piece of documents that can raise questions and/or contradict what I am stating.

I thought that after having posted also the Norfolk Gunnery details and measures this approach and fairness from my side was well proven, ... probably not well enough.

I think that on this battle, nobody has posted everything in any form and several times since 11 years, nobody has carefully researched at his own cost like I did all available material from both sides.

You know what I have got as payback so far ?
Some copy with plagiarism ... on this battle material, ... on the Tirpitz ... and on the KM camouflage ships, ... on basically everything I have shared for free on the Internet.

This to me is the only reason now NOT to post other new and official researched material from my side.
I am sick and tired to enable unfair persons to make money by the free utilization of my researched and created material.

I will NOT move from this position on the future and since I have started a new initiative you can read below, than it will OK for everybody to patiently wait until I will publish what I am currently working at about Bismarck.

http://bismarck-tirpitz.com/

http://bismarck-tirpitz.com/tirpitz/inhalt-von-teil-1/

I think that this thread and the whole argument I have shared with you all is going to be the last one from my side on the internet I managed this way.

I will keep on writing here in and participate to all discussions that will raise my interest, but as far as providing and anticipating new material I am currently working at this will not happen anymore.

Sure that you all will understand the reasons that drive me to take this position.

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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Wadinga wrote: " If Rowell's map is truly definitive, why is it different to the Gunnery Map, and why does it minimise turns witnesses saw? "
Hi Sean, could you please explain why the 2 maps are so different ?
Thanks to Herr Nilsson, we have them both, one over the other, in the attachment to his last post and they look pretty in line.

I can only notice a very limited turn and counter-turn to avoid Hood wreck at 6:00 on Rowell map that is not on the gunnery map, so limited that it could not have affected much the distance from BS. The distance reduction in Rowell map is comparable to a normal error in a single salvo of PoW. The turn was possibly perceived on board and made the ship heeling (especially because it was followed by the counter-turn), but no great overall course change for sure (just inclination) and no great effect on fall of shots around BS.

On the opposite, the continuous turn 160° to port did affect gunnery as it changed dramatically the distances.

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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by wadinga »

Hi Alberto,
I believe we are at cross purposes. The two maps I am referring to that are different are Rowell's map and the PoW Gunnery map- in which the course is ruler-straight right through to 01:30. These two come from the same vessel and yet are not consistent. The gunnery salvo representation ought to be definitive. A turn of less than 5 degrees which was not incorporated into the FC solution would render PoW's fire ineffective. There are no turns apart from the big one.

Since it is possible any action log was kept in the Compass Platform and may have been destroyed since Antonio has found only a fair copy reconstructed later, Rowell may have based his map on the Gunnery map but enhanced with a little representation of a turn he vaguely remembered before he had his face smashed in.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Wadinga wrote: "The two maps I am referring to that are different are Rowell's map and the PoW Gunnery map- in which the course is ruler-straight right through to 01:30. These two come from the same vessel and yet are not consistent."
Hi Sean, I was exactly referring to these maps. Still the two of them differ only for this "detail". Please, have a look to the .jpg file in the last post of Herr Nilsson (he put the 2 maps one over the other, the gunnery map in black and Rowell map in green: they are so similar that you have to enlarge the image to see any difference) and you will see that the turn toward the enemy was so short in time that it did not change significantly the overall course of PoW.

In both cases the overall scenario and the timings do not change.
McMullen was aware only of the turn to port, when disengaging, and A-arcs were always open (at least at salvo 16 where we clearly see fore and aft turret firing), therefore the turn was absolutely negligible in terms of distance from the enemy and inclination. Still I think it was not from rolling viewpoint, as the effect of the rudder put hard to starboard and then back to port could have made PoW heeling quite a lot (as I remember very well from my own short experience in '87 on board the Italian frigate "Perseo" when at full speed)

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)
Post Reply