Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

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

Post by Steve Crandell »

I think the nature of aircraft recon being what it is, we can't attach to much credence to the sequence of events they give. A lot of things happening in a short period and they just aren't noted for their precision with spotting reports.
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 »

Steve Crandell wrote:I think the nature of aircraft recon being what it is, we can't attach to much credence to the sequence of events they give. A lot of things happening in a short period and they just aren't noted for their precision with spotting reports.
:wink:
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,

what about a single precise input by an airplane together with the exact geographical position :
" ... bad visibility at 03.59 ( 05.59 ) one ship suffered 2 direct hits, explosion followed by fire which might have been shell flame ... "
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6332

Just taking out of my documentation one more evidence ... this is for you Alecsandros, ... I spent some time about it just for the pleasure to demonstrate you with another evidence that you were right with your intuition on the airplanes ... because you were right with the Sunderland analysis as well of course :clap:

Now we have the third available dimension verified as well : from the AIR !

British side, German side, and now also the Airplanes, ... 3 out of 3 and all in perfect synch : 06.00 ... :wink:

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 )
culverin
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:31 pm
Location: Near the Itchen Navi

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

Post by culverin »

TIMELINE.
Paul, here and on other forums is very openly and willingly attempting to establish the exact timeline.
Many individuals have contributed in response.

In the British RN the Navigating Officer has full responsibility for ships time, assisted by his yeoman.
All ships have a master chronometer, all clocks and timing devices throughout the ship are checked daily. This is the time check, broadcast to all departments.
It takes this form:- Standby for time check at 1200 ( mid day ) in 1 minute...30 seconds...10...5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - CHECK, performed by the yeoman using the master only.

The RN minute is split every 15 seconds at 15", 30", 45" and 60", which starts the next ', and denoted by a _ pointing 45, 90, 135 degrees, ( for 15", 30", 45" respectively )

I should remind everyone that time does not jump from 1 minute to the next.
There are 60 seconds ( denoted by " ) inbetween comprising that 1 minute ( denoted by ' ).

For example at 0558 : 20" 1 man will see 0558, correctly, another read 0559, incorrectly.


Nowhere do i see seconds mentioned, they are rather significant and a vital element in the progress of time.

Inevitably, many times discussed could be up to 1 full minute OUT. 60 seconds to be precise.
A full broadside. The traditional English salute.
Thanks. Sean.
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 timing of Hood's demise has NEVER been the precisely supported, or even ARGUED, event in all this. At least, that is my impression. Rather, the battle tracks (which no longer involve Hood, beyond the initial stages) have been FURIOUSLY debated and almost impossibly "exacted"-- not for that event, but for determining the battle from Prince of Wales' standpoint-- reacting with the Germans' co-ordinated firing, that damned 06:13 fiasco (created by a lie or gross error on the unreliable RN inquiry board documents), and proving almost to the second when Leach decided to terminate the action.

Not Hood's explosion. Period.

I mentioned quite awhile ago, that there was something that just did NOT seem to match up while all the Prince of Wales -oriented discussions were focused away from this event. It was actually quite secondary to the greater, longer discussion that has occupied this forum for seemingly endless months, sometimes convoluted beyond tolerability, at other times divided and discussed in off-topic threads, sub-threads, and vaguely-connected parallels. No one here who attended during those months, can say with any honesty that it was cohesive and concise. It was madness at times, just as it is, now.

I also mentioned that a "black box" juncture, of unknown content, existed after a certain point. Overall, the timing of Hood''s demise has been diminished to near-irrelevance, by way of comparison with the actions of PoW that day.

It seems to have now become a mere "clean-up" exercise to go back to a point where the matter was of only minimal importance before, and simply apply a rubber-stamp to include it within the "final" version of the battle as-stands, in the in relation to the far more "important" actions involving PoW. Certainly, there can be no unaddressed aspect left of the sunken flagship that is so exacting and "carved in stone" as to DEMAND that Hood MUST explode at 06:00 and x-number of seconds, or all the other work is utterly trashed and rendered useless!

Put another way, of all the carefully wrought conclusions reached to this date, how many really depend on an EXACT 06:00 clock time for Hood's fatal explosion to have occurred, in order to bring the end of the overall battle backward from the falsified 06:13?

Paul's paper is a REMINDER of the possible contents that "black box" conceals. His questions are meritorious. To paraphrase Mr. Virtuani's earlier comment on a name-posting mistake I'd made, I don't give a damn about whether anyone cares what my opinion is... but what Paul has raised IS valid. I believe It does NOT lengthen the timing of the battle back toward the falsified 06:13 hour to an earlier ending point, and does not affect Leach's disengagement decision, nor the time when PoW fired her last shell from Y-turret as she retreated.

But be aware of this: I believe Prince of Wales DID make an emergency starboard turn. That event is evidenced by the GAR; it is written into history by McMullen. It is accounted for by Geoffrey Brooke, whom I will remind all, was also a member of PoW's GUNNERY TEAM, witnessing the battle first-hand, in a forward gun-director of PoW. Yet, we still see what is essentially a straight line on the all-holy track chart/event line, where that event was drawn in the beginning but gradually flattened-out of existence altogether, as if the ship's rudder was never placed in a hard-a-starboard swerve (see: Antonio's derisive "...no Crazy Ivan" comment, in an earlier post).

Apparently, someone seems to have misunderstood Paul's question about Bismarck's salvo-firing, but one member who replied, seems to have gotten it exactly backward from what Paul is asking. The gunnery of Bismarck WAS faster at the beginning than it was later; not the other way 'round. Paul's asking WHY, and NOT for someone's approval of his question.

@Antonio: I cautioned you previously that you cannot "earn" through research. No one rewards you or compensates for that work. It's YOURS. But just because someone still disagrees with another part of the DS battle you have no right to stop him, nor campaign against him. The only thing to be gained are FACTS, not "truth"; one cannot research "truth". So where are the FACTS that prove PoW did NOT make an emergency turn, thereby giving you the right to substitute a straight line and claim "..no Crazy Ivan" (as you wrote in another post)?

Is it FALSE that McMullen's readings were disrupted by PoW's hard starboard turn; or Brooke's statement that the ship made that starboard turn, just a figment of his imagination; or the Germans' own statements that she turned noticeably toward them, to be disregarded? CLEAR answers are needed, and Paul is not trying to side against you, nor some "party political" you accuse of wanting to continue some needless debate.

Simply and purely, he questions something that, as it just so happens I, too wonder about. I am NOT a member of what you derisively call a "political party". I DO give a damn about the written and other evidence given by these KEY British witnesses--indeed they are not just witnesses, but PARTICIPANTS who were there and directly involved in the battle.

Finally, there is still some wiggle-room with regard to all the various battle photos, and what they show is not so much in question, but rather their timing. You have a shapen and honed a very fixed view by now, but remember that the smallest deviation in any early stage of evidence-gathering tends to propagate from a small intolerance, further afield becoming far greater in importance, the longer it remains unaddressed in a larger accounting. Simply put, the difference between "truth" and "actual fact" may never be reconciled.

You've done a marvelous job with all this, Mr. Bonomi, but you can neither earn nor purchase any claim to sole ownership of this historic battle's final "word". More may still surface, and I feel you have left out, or behind you on your way, a few patches of rough to be paved on your otherwise well-built road.

Personally, I'm very sorry to see your rather unexpectedly heated, knee-jerk reaction to the posting of Paul's document, but surely every historical FACT and real event which occurred, especially when viewed in hindsight, cannot be arbitrated, averaged-out, excluded. Please, I urge you to be happy with your 98%--it is a monumental achievement, and you've done it very well. No disrespect is due Dr. Cadogan for asking his questions, no matter how much you want that final 2% to be YOURS.

For everyone else here who gives a damn (and especially for those who don't), be aware that I have asked that my 8+ years as a member and supporter of this site be terminated, in a communication with Mr. Rico.

For that, I DO give a damn.
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 »

@Culverin: very interesting post. Do you know what was the precision of the WWII ship master chronometers and do you have an idea how much they could possibly differ from one ship to another (e.g. PoW vs Norfolk) ?
I would guess that already during WWII the precision of such key instrument on board was quite accurate (a matter of very few seconds under normal conditions....)

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,

@ RNfanDan,

Dan, I would have liked more certain arguments to be discussed in a private form instead of into a public forum, but since you addressed me here in public, than I will respond you here.

The timing of Hood's demise has been precisely recorded both sides and will never be in discussion. Period.

Dr. Paul Cadogan article, although addressed very interesting arguments to be more researched and understood about this battle he took from this forum public discussion which he correctly and fairly recognized, is incorrect as far as the intent of it and of course about the conclusion reached.

The British warships battle tracks cannot be in discussion either, since we do have official battle maps about them all, and they are very precise.

It is the conclusion that one can take from those official evidences that is the argument in discussion, not the evidence which are available.

The 06.13 and 15 sea miles for the heavy cruisers has been the “ enlargement factors ” used for 73 years to keep the evaluations about this battle the way somebody wanted them to be. Incorrect data provided as reference to reduce the pressure of a careful scrutiny for the actions of the key persons involved.

It worked well, it was needed on May 1941 and I fully understand the reasons why it happened that way during war time.

Now we are on June 2014, lot of time is passed and I was expecting a more open minded approach about an historical event precise re-construction.

This is the reason why I started the thread “ Denmark Strait and RN articles of war “, because I was ready to complete my final work about this battle, after having cleared the German side, with a deeper analysis on the British side.

What I received back in reaction since the very beginning is in there to be read. No willingness to really cooperate and accept the reality and the evidences, just the opposite, a close minded approach with the intent to leave the things as they have always been, keep the timing undefined or vague enough, do not touch those officers, do not put in discussion anything that was declared, keep “large tolerances “, everything still undefined and mixed up.

Just go in there and read how long it took me to convince everybody about the 06.13 PoW retreat time being incorrect. Than check how long it took me to convince them about the 15 sea miles being incorrect for Norfolk minimum distance from the enemy.

Please notice that on both cases there were official Royal Navy documents to refer to, it was not my personal theory, I was just asking to accept the reality as it was reported on available evidences.

You are right, the discussion is no longer about Hood explosion time or the other warship tracks, is about the actions and responsibilities of the Officers involved, about how the errors have been all charged on ViceAdm Holland and disregarded about other Officers that day.

On this scenario comes Dr. Paul Cadogan article, which unfortunately provided a new “ enlargement factor “ on the other time direction, and it was immediately taken and used to try to provide a new “ smoke screen “ to the reality just surfacing finally.

Just when you are hardly trying to fix timing, events and data, here comes a theory that pretends to put everything in discussion based on some evident errors.

It is not about Hood and her explosion time and Dr. Paul Cadogan article. It is about PoW, Norfolk and Suffolk, it is about to try to finally realize what Capt. Leach, RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Ellis really did, when, why and how long it took them to do it. Of course from a pure historical and military stand point, it is real history re-construction finally.

I am personally convinced that, after I will be done with this and I will publish my works, than the balance of errors and responsibilities among the warships and the Officers involved on the DS battle that day on the British side will be very different compared to what has been written incorrectly for the last 73 years and still many wants to believe on today, mostly to remain untouched or even not evaluated at all as you can read yourself.

Hood explosion time is the milestone event and time to refer to for the exact timing of everything else occurred before and after, if you put that in discussion everything else becomes very debatable after as logic consequence.

This is the reason why I have immediately demonstrated that the article is incorrect and Hood explosion time is defined forever.

I wish I had no need to do that to a good friend like Dr. Paul Cadogan is and I hope will remain for me, because it was no fun nor pleasure, just the opposite. I was left with no choice.

YES, PoW did made a starboard avoidance manoeuvre as Rowell reported, but never a turn to port from 280 to 260 before retreating at 06.01 and 30 seconds.

To study this battle, you have to go down to the second’s analysis because everything happened very fast, not to the minutes. Who wants to remain vague prefer the minutes and adding some more after or even before in case.

Now on what you addressed me personally :

It is not the first time that I write that I am not the owner of history, of this or any other battle or warship.

YES, I own my works, on this argument as well as on many others because I work hard, with passion, I spend my personal money travelling and researching since it is my real life passion.

I think I have the right to defend and protect my works if somebody else publishes something that puts in discussion what I did or I am doing.

Facts do correspond to historical truth when they are officially reported like in this case of the Hood explosion time. There is no argument of discussion as of today about it. Period.

Everything else contained into that article that as I stated above were mainly taken from forum threads here in I participate discussing to are still debatable with no problems and in fact I am still doing it.

Using them incorrectly to make a theory that pretends to put in discussion an available milestone is an error and I have the right to say it and demonstrate how incorrect it is, simply because since 10 years I am stating and demonstrating just the opposite using the available evidences.



What you defined a “ political party “ in reality is a “ side taken group “ that will use everything becoming available as I have explained you above just to maintain the things as of today, or even to mix them up a bit more if possible on any possible way.

I have had the taste of this type of reaction on other environments because of the same reasons.
It is a known reaction unfortunately.

Dr. Paul Cadogan article is a good and unexpected gift on this direction they have promptly taken as you can read yourself.

I really hope that this event will help them to realize that it is NOT correct to keep that approach in line of principle, a real open mind and no side taken approach will be much more appreciated and a fair conduct.

You are right, the Officers in there were not only witnesses but participants with clear responsibilities. My works will define them clearly and provide the correct way for the readers to analyze what they did compared to what they were supposed to do. Readers will make up their own opinion, as usual.

I sincerely thank you for the compliments on my work you defined a “marvellous job “, but please wait up until I will be really done about it and than you can judge it again, I would love to have yours as well as everybody else opinion about it afterwards.

Why I do all this now ? You will be maybe surprised to realize that I want to do a “ Super job “ now to really honour ViceAdm L. Holland and the Hood crew.

I am only an average historian following my pure passion for history and those warships, I hope my style to do things is appreciated and do not pretend anything more than that.

New generation will learn, and surely do better by learning and will improve further more just as I did using previous good historian’s reference style for myself. This is how the world goes.

I am not heated at all, just a bit disappointed about the occurrence, it went away almost immediately after.
Unfortunately I am getting used about those things recently.

I do not have 98%, and Paul does not have 2%.
Nobody owns anything about history in percentage.

Everybody is free to write, publish and create what he wants. Unfortunately if we are not cooperating, in synch and aligned on the researches and analysis some conflicts will arise while writing about same things and somebody will found himself at the end being incorrect while others will be still the correct ones.

But this is the risk you take when you start writing and thinking to publish something instead of keeping it into a forum thread discussion environment. You can be right or be wrong on the long run, only the time will tell.
I am sorry that in this case it took a very short time.

Last but not least, I hope you will call back your action and stay with us in a positive and productive friendship environment, with me, Paul, Sean, Duncan, RF, Tommy, Steve, Marc, Thorsten, Alberto, Alecsandros, etc etc etc and everybody else that still wants to participate into an historical discussion.

I think we did something great recently, with more than 40.000 views and almost 2.000 post’s about all this on a single thread. That means something isn’t it ? We are not that bad on historical researches at the end as a team and it shows.

Paul article is there, no problems, when readers will ask something about it, it will be his duty to explain it.

I am just happy now, since I have completed my re-construction of the 23 night battle full approach, ... so NO sadness, … I just wish I was in Jamaica with Paul and all of you with my personal archive, … a good beer and some fruit taking sun bath and swimming on the sea, … and than we can discuss about all you want for hours or days.

Talk to you soon and be relaxed … I wait for you here in since I am ready to ask your help as usual, … just like I will do now to Paul since I need some book page scans and I know he will help me on this as usual … ( Paul you have a private e-mail from me :wink: )

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 »

Hi all,

First up....Dan - I thank you SO much for your support. But I wholeheartedly join Antonio in asking you NOT to leave us. I'm still here - not going anywhere - despite being "under fire from KGV and Rodney"! No scuttling charges for me! I said my piece and accept that it will be criticized. It will be a major regret for me though if it causes us to lose your contributions and insight (and biting wit! :D ).

To Antonio - yep...I got your e-mail and have answered. Happy to help.

To Culverin - thanks so much for that excellent information. We do know, thank's to Antonio's and Duncan's posts in the "communications" thread that Hood and PoW were attempting to synchronize their chronometers before the battle began. Unfortunately the signals between them do not make clear whether or not they succeeded.

One thing I will say though, that with all the synchronization and accuracy of time-keeping by the chronometers or clocks, there is also that human element that you indeed alluded to. Someone has to observe and record an event and note the time... And therein lies the uncertainty IMHO.

Alec and Antonio.."Bismarck on the Beach".....wouldn't that be a blast!! Who knows? Maybe some day.....

Paul
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 wrote :
One thing I will say though, that with all the synchronization and accuracy of time-keeping by the chronometers or clocks, there is also that human element that you indeed alluded to. Someone has to observe and record an event and note the time ... And therein lies the uncertainty IMHO.
That is the reason why Hood board of Inquiry rated Hunter-Terry reported timing ( due to the midshipman with him taking precisely the battle time events in writings ) being the most reliable witness reference about timing.

Naval chronometers are among the best clock's in the world, they are very, very precise and controlled too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_chronometer

Anyway, that day on all units both sides they took the same time when Hood exploded, airplanes included.

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 )
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 »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Paul Cadogan,

you wrote :
One thing I will say though, that with all the synchronization and accuracy of time-keeping by the chronometers or clocks, there is also that human element that you indeed alluded to. Someone has to observe and record an event and note the time ... And therein lies the uncertainty IMHO.
That is the reason why Hood board of Inquiry rated Hunter-Terry reported timing ( due to the midshipman with him taking precisely the battle time events in writings ) being the most reliable witness reference about timing.

Naval chronometers are among the best clock's in the world, they are very, very precise and controlled too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_chronometer

Anyway, that day on all units both sides they took the same time when Hood exploded, airplanes included.

Bye Antonio :D
Hunter-Terry's timings are not precise. Note that he rounds everything to one minute, rather than seconds or quarter minutes.
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 »

RNfanDan wrote: ...
I hope you don't leave.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

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

Post by Byron Angel »

dunmunro wrote:
RNfanDan wrote: ...
I hope you don't leave.

Likewise.

B
culverin
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:31 pm
Location: Near the Itchen Navi

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

Post by culverin »

Marine Chronometer. Amongst other titles.
Probably the most accurate time device outside of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich.
Referred to also as Ships Chronometer, Master Chronometer & Master Clock.
The accuracy of which should not exceed .1 of a second per day.
A reminder, it is in fact an exemplary aid to navigation, and was invented for establishing longitude. ( Thanks Byron, my error )
Hood and Prince Of Wales would not have had to synchronise theirs. They would be almost identical to less than .5 second.
You do not synchronise from another ship.
You synchronise within the ship.
Last edited by culverin on Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A full broadside. The traditional English salute.
Thanks. Sean.
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 »

culverin wrote:Marine Chronometer. Amongst other titles.
Probably the most accurate time device outside of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich.
Referred to also as Ships Chronometer, Master Chronometer & Master Clock.
The accuracy of which should not exceed .1 of a second per day.
A reminder, it is in fact an exemplary aid to navigation, and was invented for establishing latitude.
Hood and Prince Of Wales would not have had to synchronise theirs. They would be almost identical to less than .5 second.
You do not synchronise from another ship.
Yes, they would not be synchronizing their chronometers, but the fact remains that Hood and PoW were attempting to establish a common time reference for their fire control radio link. This suggests that a significant variance could occur between the the various clocks onboard and the ship's chronometer.
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,

@ Dunmunro,

This is how the Hood board of Inquiry rated Hunter-Terry time inputs.

WITNESS'S EVIDENCE WAS LARGELY TAKEN FROM NOTES WRITTEN AT THE TIME OF THE ACTION AND THE TIMES TAKEN WERE ON THE SPOT

No more words are necessary about it.

If anybody does have something more reliable, bring it forward or just accept the reality of the many official documents available both sides.

@ Culverin,

many thanks for your inputs, they are very valuable.

Do you know also how on WW 2 they were making the Navigation Geographical point by using the clock ( Dead Reckoning ) ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_reckoning

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