Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

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

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ RNfanDan,

you correctly wrote some time ago that up until new evidences becoming available were going to be able to put in discussion the available official existing ones, than the official primary sources were going to still be considered the existing references.

I think this is a clear case were it fully apply.

No one as been able to put in discussion with new evidences the existing ones about 06.00 for the Hood explosion time.

You can wait the 75 years records to be opened, and hope that in there some new evidence will become available.

So far the assumptions of the theory to try to move back 2 minutes the Hood explosion time has been demonstrated with no fundaments.

1) Bismarck salvoes timing have been NOT correctly evaluated as you can read above.
2) PoW gunnery report analysis does NOT support/prove any Hood explosion time before 06.00.
3) PoW secondary armament analysis is NOT consistent and it is based on an incorrect evaluation of the hits timing on the secondary directors as I have demonstrated above.
4) Hood salvoes are still a mystery, so NOT usable to sustain anything.
5) The 20 degree turn from 280 to 260 is well reported by Leach and Rowell, it was never executed by PoW.
6 ) The photographs distances have been explained in full details several times, they only support PoW salvoes 13 and 14 ( Nh 69724 ) and salvo 19 ( Nh 69731 ). Relative distances and timings are well proven once you associate them with Rowell map on the correct scale and angle of visibility.
7) Norfolk turn away at 06.00. Well this speaks for itself, ... no comments are necessary here, ... just this one is a solid evidence of the occurrence.
8) Witnesses : some are listed to try to support a different time than 06.00. Here above on this thread you have 10 times more reliable witnesses stating 06.00, both sides.

As you can see no solid base even to try to start putting in discussion the solid available primary source evidences both sides about 06.00 being Hood explosion time.

I am sure you all remember well what I had to do to convince you about the 15 sea miles of Norfolk distance being incorrect, and still there are persons here in and on the internet refusing to accept a well proven official evidence I took from the official documentation and shared with everybody.

That is the right way to do things, ... bring out the new solid and official evidence, ... and than you can put in discussion the previous incorrect declarations.

We are far away in this case ... no chances ... both for the very solid primary sources available evidence, ... as well as for the very weak theory to try to do it with no evidence in support of 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 »

The battle of Midway account stood as it was, based largely on US "primary" sources, for a long time, too. It was only after Parshall & Tully examined and revealed primary evidence from the OTHER side's viewpoint, as well as a complete technical and eventual analysis, that the previously one-sided accountings either crumbled, or were in need of revision.

I can mathematically PROVE that a bullet fired from just a few feet away, aimed accurately at your body and with no interference to the bullet between muzzle and your person, WILL NEVER STRIKE YOU. The science is valid, the mathematics are valid, and it all looks perfectly right on paper, following the laws of mathematics and physics.

But would I regard even THAT degree of precision and logic to save me from being struck, if I were to face that scenario?

Of course not.

So what's missing?

I'm happy to explain, in another message, but it is off topic.

I am perfectly happy with the work you have done. This is not a contest to see who's right and who's wrong. I refuse to be "sold" on anything until all questions are settled. If the methodology and evidence comes from one side, in some cases cherry-picked, averaged-out, or debunked in continuous-loop fashion---then there MUST be room to allow for alternative views.

What's got the caravan circling the wagons? What has Paul written, that is so "dangerous" or threatening to the fine wqrk that has been done, so far? Is it the GAR? Is it the interview of Hood's survivors now showing up at IWM archives?

The more I see of the reaction to this, the more I am reminded of a Christian arguing with a Muslim about who's religion is "right". There is no point to it, whatsoever. There are two beliefs for now....will there be a third in the offing?

Finally, you implore me to wait until anything new is revealed after the 75 year seal is opened. Okay, what will happen if some new evidence comes to light, which works against the present-day "truth"? The instant that happens, what was before, is no more---thus, it never was "truth", just a closer approximation, perhaps, than what came even before TODAY's "truth". Remember that 06:13 fell, too...thanks to new evidence. But are we really at the very END of this matter?

My friend, it isn't about discrediting you. It's simply an effort on the part of someone who isn't convinced 100%.

Something is still missing.
Last edited by RNfanDan on Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
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 »

PoW's salvo chart (and her G.A.R.) is one of the most solid documents that we have. It was recorded in real time during the action by a machine and by personnel who were not distracted by the gunfire, shell splashes and hits around them. It has to carry a lot of weight.
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 »

RNfanDan wrote:
What's got the caravan circling the wagons? What has Paul written, that is so "dangerous" or threatening to the fine wqrk that has been done, so far? Is it the GAR? Is it the interview of Hood's survivors now showing up at IWM archives?
Nothing.
The problem is not with the GAR but with the agenda. IF someone wants to believe it is 12:00AM when everybody else's clocks show it's 5:00 PM, he will still believe it, just because.

What's up with Hood interviews ?
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,

@ RNfanDan,

I do not implore you for anything, simply because I do not need it.

I wrote you to wait the 75 years record to be opened just to leave that theory a chance that today is not there.

If new evidence will come out strong enough to put in discussion what is available today into the primary sources we will all evaluate them and see what they will drive us toward to. I have no problems about it. But again this is all theoretical on this moment, nothing real.

What is real is the fact that Paul produced a theory that pretend to bring back the time 2 minutes and puts 2 hits on the secondary directors before the hit on the compass platform and it is incorrect, being well proven by available evidences. Same goes for the turn showed into the map, never occurred.
This is just to list the 2 major errors in there, but there are many more as I wrote above.

With that theory against what is available on today primary sources you are going nowhere, as simple as that.

You wrote there is no contest about who is right or who is wrong. Unfortunately if somebody does a well researched work for years and somebody else after does a similar work trying to demonstrate something different, than the contest is started and I am NOT the responsible for that, and I have no problems about it as always.

Anyway there is no doubt today about who is right and who is wrong, since it is so evident given the available evidences.

No, we are NOT at the end of this matter, ... there are many more " can of worms " to be opened about this battle and they smell very bad.

In my personal opinion trying to drive the analysis of this battle in this direction is a clear error and a waste of time.
We had enough of it in the past, ... there was no need of one more.
I thought that a thread here in was more than enough to end that useless debate given the evidence available of the opposite.

It was much better to drive the new analysis on the direction I have started about eliminating once for good the 06.13 and 06.03 and establish a correct PoW retreat time, ... it was much better to help me working on the correct heavy cruiser distances and shadowing effort the night before, ... it was much better to try to put more light about the court martial call and the cover up started after it to enable the recognitions.

But here we are wasting time on this thread about a theory that will never stand on his feet, ... making happy the ones that still wants this battle to remain vague and into the fog ... never correctly defined ... and always opened to a new scenario ... this way everything that was done is debatable and no final analysis can be conducted.

This is exactly what they want and need ... this is why they support all this, ... this is their agenda.

It will NOT work, ... I have too many evidence in my hands as of today.

You can keep on wasting time and efforts about Hood explosion time, ... it will NOT move ... just like her wreck found by David Mearns using the correct information of course, .. not the fantasy ones ... :wink:

I go back on the real work ... I am having fun with L. Kennedy and Wake-Walker " shadowing " efforts ... no intention to continue wasting too much time here.

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

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

sorry, error posting the message, please see post below
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:09 am, edited 2 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)
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 »

RNfanDan wrote: "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". "
Did I say in any post something like this or are you just inventing things ? :negative:
Please show me where I said you are disrespectful and I will beg your pardon, else I expect YOU BEG MY PARDON for calling me a cheerleader ! :kaput:

RNfanDan wrote: "I am sorry to report that as of this day, Alberto, my foes/ignore list will be lengthened by one more username. "
I'm afraid that I don't care a damn about your "list" ! :lol:

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:22 am, edited 6 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)
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7759
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

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

Post by RF »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
But here we are wasting time on this thread about a theory that will never stand on his feet, ... making happy the ones that still wants this battle to remain vague and into the fog ... never correctly defined ... and always opened to a new scenario ... this way everything that was done is debatable and no final analysis can be conducted.

This is exactly what they want and need ... this is why they support all this, ... this is their agenda.
From the standpoint of academic research I don't find comments like these very productive or helpful, rather it reduces matters to a party political ding dong.

Far better to concentrate on the facts and avoid conspiracy theory or trying to second guess the motivations of others.

For myself I have no problem in agreeing or accepting the timings you state.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
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:Did I say in any post something like this or are you just inventing things ?
Neither one, sir!

I will happily make amends for mixing names; it was NOT yourself to whom I intended my comment apply. I was alerted too late to correct my mistake. Please accept my apology, Alberto. Your pardon IS begged.... :oops:

RNfanDan wrote: "I am sorry to report that as of this day, Alberto, my foes/ignore list will be lengthened by one more username."
This still holds true, Alberto...but it does not refer to you, as explained above. My mistake, sir!

And a BIG thanks to those who e-mailed me with their alert about my gaffe! Sorry it happened as it did! :stubborn:

Thank you as well, Alberto.
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 »

@RNfanDan: from my side, excuses accepted, Sir !

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: 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,

@ RF,

you wrote :
For myself I have no problem in agreeing or accepting the timings you state.
Thanks for your clearly defined position, ... sincerely I do not see any other possibility about it.

Be sure that I will reduce to the minimum necessary the wasting of my time in response to the " party political ding dong " somebody tries to involve me into.

I fully agree with you, the academic research is far more important, but I do not see many persons around me on this moment following my example on doing it.

As said, I would like now to stop here and go back on my researches, ... deeply analyzing the May 23rd night and the " shadowing efforts " ... a much more productive time than discussing here about the Hood explosion time that will NOT change.

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
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,

I hope that the level of our discussion about those arguments here in will remain fair and relaxed as it should always be.

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:Hello everybody,

I hope that the level of our discussion about those arguments here in will remain fair and relaxed as it should always be.

Bye Antonio :D
..... Antonio, what do you think about the Short Sunderland report ? Seems to me it sums up things pretty clear..... For who wants to read them, that is.
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 »

alecsandros wrote: Antonio, what do you think about the Short Sunderland report ? Seems to me it sums up things pretty clear..... For who wants to read them, that is.
You asked for Antonio's opinion, but I hope you don't mind my commenting as well...

I'm not sure how that can be an indicator of very specific times. It reports sighting a cruiser at 0537 and at the same time, seeing heavy gunfire in the distance. That obviously can't be right, since there was no gunfire at 0537.

The enemy sighting report is timed at 0410! Moving an hour and a half back in time?

It reports the violent explosion of Hood and again, at the same time came under AA fire and went into the clouds to escape. FIve minutes later, it suggests, Hood was not yet completely sunk.

Paul Schmalenbach was able to observe Hood's explosion and see some of PoW's actions before having to shift his attention to AA fire at the Sunderland. Brinkmann reports the aircraft alarm at 0610. Things do not quite mesh therefore....only in very general terms with a great deal of "tolerance".

Not really too helpful in pinning down anything specific to Hood's fatal hit time.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Anyway, I understand and accept that some of you - maybe many of you - don't agree with what I have presented. Goes with the territory. NONE of us was there on May 24, 1941 and NONE of us can change what exactly happened and when. We can only read, evaluate and interpret events and try to understand.

This exercise I have gone through has increased my understanding of and comfort with the timing of the events. I decided to share my thoughts in a formal manner, and those thoughts still stand - no "agenda", no attempt to undermine anyone. You may accept or reject as you see fit - as you all are doing.

With best regards and respect to ALL!

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 »

@Paul

I have always liked the way you presented things here. This is of course a subjective thing, but somehow my opinion is that many of us would realy , realy enjoy a beer together, somewhere on an island or on a beach... somewhere close to the ocean anyway...

I also respect your opinions concerning Hood's demise, which, if I remember correctly, started precisely because you thought it took longer than 2 minutes for the HMS Hood to sink completely or almost completely.

What I did not understand is why did you rushed into a long article without clearing the issues beforehand - all the timings that we have concentrate around 6:00, and there is not a single one that I know of to pin point Hood's critical hit at 5:58.

Other than that, the Sunderland report, brushing aside the obvious clock inconsistencies, puts together several pieces of information:
- the aircraft OBSERVED the Hood BURNING in 2 places, and at the same time Bismarck leaving a thick oil slick.
- AFTER that, the aircraft approached, and was taken under fire, forcing it to take cloud cover,
- WHILE the plane was hiding , the Hood was exploding.

All these actions, presuming they were reported in the correct order that they happened (and not distorted by fatigue, stress, pressure and shock of seeing the mighty Hood dissapear...) took some time to happen.
So SOME TIME passed since the Hood was burning, while the Bismarck was bleeding thick oil, and finaly the Hood exploded while the plane hid in the clouds...

It is just my opinion, nothing that takes away from the remarkable work others have put into this forum.

Cheers,
Post Reply