Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by paulcadogan »

Hi Dan,

GRENFELL's account, posted by Antonio is based on the Boards of Inquiry that Bismarck replied immediately to Hood's opening salvo rather than the delay until 0555 which is know was the actual case. So he assumes "several straddles" before the turn to port to open the A-arcs.

Kennedy on the other hand had access to German accounts and actually draws quite significantly on Busch it seems. His timeline is significantly different to Grenfell's. He has things a bit confused in that he first says Holland made a small turn to port to open the A-arcs, then in the same paragraph describes a second "2 Blue" again for the same purpose. He does not give a time for either.

Here is the page from KENNEDY as Antonio requested.:
Kennedy P 85.jpg
(199.86 KiB) Not downloaded yet
@Antonio, I understand the situation re: Busch and Grenfell and the maps. At first I thought Grenfell got the map from Busch (but of course that is not possible!) so that is now clear thanks. I suspect Grenfell, therefore, got that map done based on PoW's salvo plot which put "Hood out of action" at 0556. It is VERY clear that those early accounts were put together without the painstaking "scrutinalysis" that we have been doing today.

Still, the point I'm making remains. Busch puts a SPECIAL annotation - different to the others on the map - at 0559 for the "decisive strike" on Hood - independent of Suffolk who also noted that time.

Also, as I noted earlier Busch's written account bears uncanny similarity of sequence to Leach's narrative and McMullen's Gunnery report in terms of the firing of the 5.25's followed by the turn towards the Germans in evading Hood's wreck - TOTALLY independently, of course... So we DO have German corroborative observations.

NOTHING you or I can deduce or surmise can be cast in stone. None of us were there with digitally synchronized time pieces keeping watch of the times as the events unfolded. You could be right and I'm wrong or I could be right and you're wrong...or we could BOTH be wrong! All I ask of you is to accept that possibility based on ALL the evidence that we have both presented. Never say never!

Paul :ok:
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Paul Cadogan,

you are right my friend on your evaluations on Grenfell and Kennedy books.

But while Grenfell wrote it on 1948 with apparently few references, … this does not apply to Ludovic Kennedy that wrote his book PURSUIT well after, on 1974.
Kennedy could leverage on ALL the de-secreted documents of 1972 from the Public Record Office in KEW-London I have recently took as well.

So if I can understand Grenfell doing a very poor battle map and even getting confused on the last 2 turns mixing up things and not being so precise, despite the fact that he reduced to the real minimum the data references on his narrative ( time, bearings, courses, distances, doc. ref. etc etc ), I cannot accept a similar poor level of narrative and correct references from Ludovic Kennedy. He should have done much better given what he had available both sides on 1974.

I like the fact that Grenfell, more than others, was already correctly pointing to the KGV quadruple turrets problem being a design problem rather than a teething trouble one.

http://www.unz.org/Pub/SaturdayRev-1949jul30-00032a02

Anyway, it went that way and now it is history too about those events, for many years that was what readers had available to read and try to understand, plus the Busch and Baron books of course, at same level more or less.

Recently much better and complete works have been published about the Denmark Strait battle, and be sure we are not done yet.

I see your point about the HMS Prince of Wales secondary ( 133 mm or 5.25 inches ) firing from 18.600 meters.
This point, together with the hit received soon after the PoW salvo Nr. 12 will have the deserved attention and evaluation, but they do not change the overall bigger scenario.

You are right, nothing is written in stone.
I think I have demonstrated it well enough with the PoW 06.13 retreat time and 15 sea miles for Norfolk and Suffolk by Adm Tovey.
But as you know very well, I had to go and find ALL the official evidences of the opposite in order to convince you all about those statements being incorrect.
Probably there is still somebody not fully convinced, despite the evidences showed.

In this case of the Hood explosion time, everything seems to me confirming the 06.00 and 10/20 seconds.
I cannot even think were a different set of evidences can be found in order to put in discussion what is officially available on both sides.
I have searched all over, and I only found confirmations of that, many more than the ones I have showed you above.

You want a couple of examples :

Ref. ADM 116/4351 page 57
You know why LtntCdr A. Hunter-Terry has been considered the most reliable witness by the Hood Board of Inquiry with time at hand written during the battle ?
Because he was dictating the battle events with timing to a Midshipman writing everything into his port after High Angle director position.
He dictated to the Midshipman that Hood exploded at 06.00 and PoW turned away during the 06.01 minute.
Ref. ADM 267/111
On the PoW damage report there is a document with a battle events preface in order to summarize the damages. You know what they wrote ?
PoW started firing 30 seconds after Hood did at 05.53, and Hood exploded 7 minutes after it, at 06.00.
Among the many pages on that huge document referencing to the 06.00 being the time the Hood exploded, it was the 7 minutes counter after 05.53 that took my attention on it.

Anyway, like I am always used to say … never say never :wink: … still if today you ask me what I think about it I will sincerely respond you : 06.01 and 10 seconds, that is the time NH 69724 photo was taken, … showing PoW salvoes 13 and 14 in the air behind her.

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
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by paulcadogan »

You know why LtntCdr A. Hunter-Terry has been considered the most reliable witness by the Hood Board of Inquiry with time at hand written during the battle ?
Because he was dictating the battle events with timing to a Midshipman writing everything into his port after High Angle director position.
He dictated to the Midshipman that Hood exploded at 06.00 and PoW turned away during the 06.01 minute.
Yes I understand that Antonio...the times were noted "on the spot" as the Inquiry said. But still...Terry's account says Hood was hit and the boat deck fire started at 0557. That time would place that hit AFTER the first 2 Blue signal was executed. All accounts say that hit happened BEFORE the turn.

Then he times the crane/funnel hit to 0601 which directly conflicts with McMullen's gunnery report which states the hit occurred shortly after the forward HACS hit, preventing the aft HACS director from taking over, shutting down the 5.25's after only 3 salvoes fired as a "deflection triple". I would think a "deflection triple" would be three salvoes fired in fairly quick succession to establish line, then the one that was correct for line would be used to fire the subsequent salvos to find the range - i.e. a ladder. It is clear the 5.25's opened fire just before 0557. Busch observed them firing just before PoW turned towards him. Leach said they were "in action" then "course was altered to starboard" to avoid Hood. They could not possibly have taken 3 minutes to fire the deflection triple! The "heavy hit" noted after salvo 12 which set the pointers off in the TS - these are much more reliable indicators of timing than an individual taking notes from his watch (maybe) which could be off by a minute or more.

I am sure that Terry reported in good faith, and the Board accepted it.... but you have to take into account he was first making observations then he had to dictate to his midshipman who then "noted the time". He was not correct in the sequence of Bismarck's fall of shot (he said the first straddled, the second was short and the third or fourth hit starting the boat deck fire). His timing probably more corresponds to the time the notes were written, AFTER he made his observations, put his observations into words and the midshipman wrote them down. McMullen on the other hand was able to link events with the corresponding salvos which therefore more precisely pinpoints the time. The Board, it seems, did not conduct this careful cross-referencing or they would have picked up the discrepancies.

PoW's battle damage report summary would have used the timing based on what had been accepted in other documents and YES 0600 was the accepted time - so 7 minutes from 0553. That does not mean that their times were "spot on".
Antonio Bonomi wrote:I see your point about the HMS Prince of Wales secondary ( 133 mm or 5.25 inches ) firing from 18.600 meters.
This point, together with the hit received soon after the PoW salvo Nr. 12 will have the deserved attention and evaluation, but they do not change the overall bigger scenario.
I'm really glad you see this. They do not change the overall scenario, but the are very powerful indicators to nail things down more precisely. Antonio, there is STILL much room for flexibility in understanding what happened, despite the "accepted" designations. So, please carefully examine those indicators from McMullen's report, Busch's observations and Leach's narrative. They are KEY! And don't forget those unusual spreads in salvos 11 and 12... :D

For what it's worth, I did a quick survey of the timepieces in my house - my laptop and cellphone both had 0916, my watch had 0918 and three clocks had 0918, 0915 and 0916 respectively...(I just corrected my watch!! :oops: ).

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by dunmunro »

Please see my post here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6276

as it may be relevant to this thread as well.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@ all: As correctly suggested by RNfanDan I move to this thread to comment on the last Paul's Article.
RNfanDan wrote: "AN EXACT TIME MAY NEVER BE PROVEN. PERIOD! The best we can ever hope for is an approximation. We are all down to within a couple minutes' time, either way. Obstinate dependence on one conclusion is folly---not necessarily because it's inaccurate, but simply because it cannot be definitively PROVEN. "
No, the timing is proven by the primary sources and we know the error with the ship clocks was always very limited (a proof can be seen comparing the PG KTB to the PoW gunnery map, they match with a difference of few seconds!)
If someone has a way to dismiss the primary sources, then the timing can be debated, else the very interesting work of Paul remains unfortunately just an interpretation of minor discrepancies (very well explainable in several other ways without moving the explosion timing), e.g. PoW secondary armament firing, and BS salvos exact timing.

For sure, as solicited also by Paul article, there is space for further investigation, but until a new opposite proof is presented, the exact timing is and remains proven: 6:00 + few seconds (5 to 20) as this is the only tolerance allowed if we put together all existing evidences.

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:45 pm, edited 3 times 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: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by alecsandros »

@Alberto,

Things are complicated, but it is not productive to discuss them with people with an agenda to prove Prince of Wales was "under fire" from 5:58, or better yet, that she withdrew from battle "at 6:13", "fighting alone" for 15 minutes.

It realy is pointless, realy.

"Discussing" in those terms after the herculean work done by Antonio is a lack of respect.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto

I agree with you :clap: ... and with the point Alecsandros underlined on the other thread too :clap:

The discrepancies Paul tried to use to provide some ground to hold his theory, ... are with no fundaments as I have stated on the KBismarck facebook page when Jose' posted it there time ago.

The PoW secondary director being hit and placed out of action before the hit received on the Compass Platform are simply impossible by the witnesses on board PoW own declarations.

For more details, ... as I have stated several times already on other threads, ... please refer to Hunter-Terry ... and read carefully Esmond Knight declarations about the event timings and details.

Here Esmond Knight BEFORE the Hood explosion and immediately after the Hood explosion to the Hood board on Inquiry :

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... htm#Knight
Did you hear anything?
That was a very peculiar thing also - I don't remember even hearing the explosion at all. I remember listening for it and thinking it would be a most tremendous explosion, but I do not remember it, because practically immediately after that we altered course and the shell which came through the Compass Platform was the one that knocked me out. I don't remember much more after that.
Please notice that Esmond Knight up until this moment, so immediately AFTER the Hood explosion, does NOT mention any hit received into the PoW secondary director a couple of meters behind his head, ... and he was very carefully listening for noise of explosions .... as he stated himself, ... he was OK on board PoW on his battle station until that moment.

But what happened soon after ??? Or using own Esmond Knight words : " What on earth had happened? "

Of course it happened that the PoW compass platform hit was received at 06.00 and 50 seconds.

You can read it here in directly from his own words :

http://www.esmondknight.org.uk/hislife08.htm

In particular :
"From that moment on everything seems hazy, except that I remember again hearing that great rushing noise, like the approach of a cyclone, and having a quite irrelevant dream about listening to the band in Hyde Park, and then being conscious of a high ringing noise in my head and slowly coming to. I had the sensation that I was dying. It was a strange feeling, and one that made me feel rather sad - no more.
... but what was the situation around Esmond Knight when he woke up ?

This one :
There was a lot of water swishing about- I was lying on my side with a great weight on top of me.
So " a lot of water " around him, ... now please go to the thread about the hit on the forward secondary director and read what I told you several times already :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6440&p=59947#p59947

The hit on the PoW forward secondary director occurred AFTER the hit on the compass platform, ... surely NOT some time BEFORE it !

So if one wants to better realize what really happened, ... and some PoW secondary fire discrepancy details, ... it is better to investigate why Capt. Leach incorrectly declared that hit " received on the same BS salvo " and not some time after ... and maybe being a 150 or 203 mm and NOT a 380 mm by BS, ... just as it had been at first declared by the PoW damage report.

In the same way all other inconsistencies addressed by Paul can be explained, ... without the need to try to move the time of Hood explosion that is correct and cannot be moved in any way given the existing primary source evidences.

It is enough to accept the evident fact that many declarations about this battle have been " altered/modified " to fit a version to be declared that was going to support the recognitions they wanted to give to the Officers involved, ... avoiding details or data that were NOT going to support it on summer 1941, ... and were going to reinforce the request/need of a board of inquiry about what happened that morning, ... both for PoW as well as for the heavy cruisers Officers.

@ Alecsandros,
" Discussing " in those terms after the herculean work done by Antonio is a lack of respect.
Many thanks ... :oops: ... I am NOT done yet, ... and when my final work about all this will see the light ... than I will have the problem you correctly realized, ... a lot of persons that will NOT accept the truth no matter what ... in line of principle ... they like the version to remain the one that for 73 years have been delivered to them ... better ignore the facts than knowing the truth ... better that thing remain unexplained or vague ... I have already had a good taste of those reactions all around the internet already.

Nothing will stop me, ... since the memory of ViceAdm L. Holland and the courageous crew of HMS Hood deserve the truth ... it is my way to honor them, ... who that day bravely fought.

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

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by alecsandros »

Well Antonio, if you kept your patienceto reply, then I should do the same...

Bismarcks maximum rate of fire was not achieved because of the following:

- the first 3 salvos were for ranging, and only after the fourth rapid fire was ordered.
-- each salvo contained 2 semi salvos, fired individualy on a different fc solution. As we can see in the Schlamembach film, sometimes it took a long gime between the semi salvos to be fired.
- given the huge rate of approach of the 2 forces, and the known elevation probleems of Bismarcks RPC, it makes sense that each semi salvo was fired after carefully (manualy ?) adjusting for range.
- the relatively small ammo supply of apc shells carriex on board also probably affected maximum output.

A breakdown of full salvos is as follows:
6 full salvos ( 12 semisalvos) vs the Hood.
7 full salvos ( 14 semi salvos) vs the Prince.
Total giring yime 14 minutes. Average full salvos / minute ~1.

This is comparable with other battleships firing at similar ranges. For examply Massachussets of Casablanca fired an average of 1.1 full salvos/minute (allthough maximum rate of fire was around 2 full salvos/minute). Average range was 19km (so slightly higher elevation then Bismarcks guns, cimpensated by the fasterr wlevation time on US fast batrleships. Around 8*/second)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Alecsandros,

I agree with you. One thing is the theoretical gun rate of fire, ... another is the real fire timing while in battle.

Remember also that Bismarck turned 2 times while firing at PoW, ... at 06.03 ( from 220 to 270 ) ... and at 06.05/6 ( from 270 back to 220 ).

The Prinz Eugen Op. Rheinubung Film ( or Schmalenbach as you called it ) shows it clearly.

More, if you compare PoW, we have more or less same output in terms of salvoes ( or semi-salvoes ).

PoW on almost 9 minutes fired 18 semi-salvoes, .... so 9 full salvoes, ... around 1 salvo every minute or 2 semi-salvoes a minute.

Bismarck did the same .... on around 13 minutes, ... probably 13 full salvoes just one every minute ... or 26 semi-salvoes ... just 2 every minute as well.

Another error I think everybody is doing here, ... is to assume that 18.600 or 18.000 yards for PoW secondary was the range measured by McMullen PoW main guns rangefinder, so we have to assume as reference the main guns PoW plot for distances and related timings.

The PoW secondary armament was having her own rangefinders and in fact they opened and mostly they ceased fire according to the availability or not of those directors/rangefinders controlling the guns firing.
Their distance evaluation and related timing was probably different than PoW main gun ones.

Same thing was valid for Bismarck of course, ... different rangefinders and directors.

So in reality we do NOT know the precise timing PoW secondary opened fire, ... and when their directors were having that distance evaluated.

We do not know when they were firing, ... Capt. Leach gave us his own report about it, ... McMullen did not.

We do know when they ceased fire, ... when both the forward as well as the aft secondary directors were hit, ... and that directly relates with the timing of the hits received.

That is why the second hit on the forward secondary directors is so important, being associated to the timing AFTER the compass platform one .... and here we have Esmond Knight ... and the hit on the aft secondary director is important as well when associated to the crane+funnel/aft director hit ... and here Hunter-Terry timing ( his Midshipman taking carefully the battle timing ) rated the most accurate by Admiralty ... is a milestone reference.

Both those hits occurred AFTER the Compass Platform one, ... so AFTER the Hood exploded, ... no doubts.

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
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by paulcadogan »

Hello everyone,

First up I'd like to thank you ALL for your responses - whether in support or dissent. As I wrote in the paper, it is for the reader to decide.

From I opened this thread months ago, I knew I might be committing DS "blasphemy" for some, but as I said, the more I've looked at it the more I have been convinced that there is substance. I felt so strongly that I decided to put it all together in an article rather than leave it disjointed in a forum thread that will scroll away and be lost (as I guess some of you might wish! :D ). Frank Allen and Jose' both offered to post it and I asked them to do so IF they thought it had merit. I am honoured by their doing so.

We have already debated this matter here at length - so hopefully we won't need to rehash over and over again as happened in the marathon "Articles" thread. We can either agree or respectfully disagree.

As Antonio rightly said, we are pursuing the truth - but with the many unknowns, we will have differing opinions. That is OK, even expected.

And Antonio, I hope you NEVER stop! Although we may disagree on this point, NOTHING will diminish the respect and admiration I have for you and your work! I hope our internet friendship will continue!

Thanks guys!

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by alecsandros »

@Antonio

Yes, of course...

Furthermore, I think there is one brief period of firing that shows Bismarck's TRUE rate of fire.

That is .... salvo 6 (semi salvo 6.1 + semi salvo 6.2).

Why was salvo 6 fired at the Hood at all ? She was observed as blowing up at salvo 5...

The only explanation I can think of is that Bismarck's artillery had gone into rapid mode, and the firing interval between salvo 5 (semi salvo 1 + semi salvo 2) and salvo 6 (again, semi salvo 1 + semi salvo 2) was SMALLER than the time it took the shells from salvo 5 to reach Hood, dstroy it, and for the officers to observe the explosion and to cancel firing onto the Hood. Presuming the killing hit at 15.5km, time of flight would be a mere 23 seconds + a few more seconds required to observe the explosion and stop the firing against Hood. Let's say a total of 30 seconds to be safe.

That means the entire salvo 6 (BOTH semi salvos) were fired in LESS than 30 seconds after salvo 5...

===
It all had to do with a stable firing solution. IF the battle were a battle on parallel lines, I'm sure the rate of fire would have been much higher. As it was, with Hood coming fast at an impossibly high speed, and bad target angle, they were firing slow...

===

There are also the course changes between 5:52 - 6:02 that Bismarck did (according to survivors) to upset enemy gunnery. We do not know if either of those turns masked 1 or even 2 turrets (the aft ones the more likely) from training onto the Hood.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Alecsandros,

YES, I agree, ... either the full 6 th salvo ( 4+4) or half of it ( only 4 ) went to the Hood exploding. Than Bismarck quickly and accurately shifted target to PoW hitting her with her first semi-salvo ( 4 ) on the Compass Platform as we can see on the Op. Rheinubung film.

YES, if the battle was going to continue on parallel lines the rate of fire on both sides was going to increase, and that I think was what Vice-Adm Holland was thinking it was going to happen.

I do not think that the small and fast avoidance turns to were masking the own turrets.

@ Paul,

Be sure my friend that nothing will stop me and this work will be published one day at the same level of precision I have just launched the Tirpitz books.

http://bismarck-tirpitz.com/

It will be published with the planned Bismarck books in full details.

That day everybody will see the entire work I am doing now, and be sure that many will be disappointed about it, but there is nothing I can do.
They better be ready and relaxed, it is going to come.

I was the first one supporting you to look for the truth and be convinced about it yourself at first.
I hoped that you were going to find my same answers and accept the reality as it shows and is, but it did not happen and I am ok with it.

You know I disagree about your conclusions and I wrote you why several times with the related evidences.
You keep on trust your theory and that is absolutely ok for me, it will not change our internet friendship :wink: .

I take the occasion to thank you for the nice words at the end of your article on the acknowledgments section.

@ all,

Here the last gift for everybody here in out of my latest researches activities, the Prinz Eugen original KTB entry of Hood sinking time.
Prinz_Eugen_KTB_Hood_sinking_time.jpg
Prinz_Eugen_KTB_Hood_sinking_time.jpg (29.27 KiB) Viewed 2756 times
As you should have realized so far it was incorrectly copied into the Bismarck re-constructed KTB on 1941 being 06.01 and 20 seconds and than it generated several other error entries after it on other Official Kriegsmarine documents written after it.

It must be read : 06.00 and 20 seconds as you can easily see and realize yourself :wink:

I think we can stop here about this argument, just as Paul suggested too.

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

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by alecsandros »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
YES, I agree, ... either the full 6 th salvo ( 4+4) or half of it ( only 4 ) went to the Hood exploding. Than Bismarck quickly and accurately shifted target to PoW hitting her with her first semi-salvo ( 4 ) on the Compass Platform as we can see on the Op. Rheinubung film.
mmmm... one small quibble.
Are you sure wasn't salvo 7 that straddled Prince of Wales for no hits (6:01), followed by salvos 8 (6:01), 9 (6:02), 10 (6:03 - while the Bismarck was runing from torpedoes) which produced at least 3 hits ?
With the range so low and the target well straddled, it is conceivable that rapid fire was ordered against Prince of Wales too... Rapid fire was stopped probably as the Prince was completely covered in smoke and radar guided fire was slow to compensate.

Thus 4 full salvos (7,8,9, 10) in 2 minutes is not at all a difficult thing to do, especialy at such small elevations of the guns (about 5*).
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Alecsandros,

the key is into the Op. Rheinubung film when you associate the PoW salvo 16th showed in there with the timing of salvoes 13th and 14 visible on the photo NH 69724.

If you follow all this events referencing PoW gunnery plot timetable, ... considering the shells flying time, ... than you have the full events correct timing.

Than you can easily realize how many semi-salvoes could have been fired by Bismarck on that small timeframe.

Many details about this battle have been under our eyes since years, ... it is just enough to realize that everything occurred very fast.

But many had " interest " to slow down and enlarge/modify the events timing ... as much as possible.

Ironically Capt Leach was " hoping " to be able to reach at least 06.03 and associate as much as he could no working guns and as many hits received as he could in that elapsed timeframe ... but somebody decided that it was going to become 06.13 for him with the full 7 hits damages received and all related problems on board :shock: ... and than more than 15 sea miles for the 2 heavy cruisers ... both out of gunnery range.

No more ... we have read enough about it ...

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
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by RNfanDan »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
RNfanDan wrote: "AN EXACT TIME MAY NEVER BE PROVEN. PERIOD! The best we can ever hope for is an approximation. We are all down to within a couple minutes' time, either way. Obstinate dependence on one conclusion is folly---not necessarily because it's inaccurate, but simply because it cannot be definitively PROVEN. "
No, the timing is proven by the primary sources...
"The" primary sources are weighted significantly toward GERMAN accountings. A number of British sources were fouled beyond repair by attempts to aid in other goals--as we have all learned, theirs was an ulterior motive which caused the reconstruction of some documents, perhaps the utter failure to question the surviving witnesses thoroughly (re: Robert Tilburn's IWM interview, as Paul has used). There may be much more to come, once the 75-year seal period is opened.

If you believe I am being disrespectful of Antonio's work, so be it. But I am not one to hang my hat on largely single-sided documentation, think again! I have no disrespect for Antonio, whatsoever--let this be clear.

What seems apparent to me, however, is that I don't need a "cheerleader" or Press Room Advocate telling me that, because I still question certain aspects of the DS event, and believe Paul has raised some legitimate points, that I am to be excommunicated from "The Church of 06:00".

I am sorry to report that as of this day, Alberto, my foes/ignore list will be lengthened by one more username.

Antonio, your work is much appreciated, but not all supporters of your work are quite fair-minded enough to allow for dissent. My apologies!

--Dan
Image
Post Reply