In the nicest possible way I would like to direct the conversation back towards the thread title, since establishing where Norfolk and Suffolk were next berthed together, is only needed so the idea that an overbearing, cowardly and duplicitious senior officer could get together and dragoon his underling into falsifying records can be insinuated. The underlings tortured conscience could only be saved by a brief, muddled description written many years later, which contradicted some elements of what was reported at the time.
Back at reality;
Antonio, your latest map shows Norfolk travelling 10 miles SE. As you know, and I know, because someone generously sent me a copy of Norfolk's Plan 8 (which is your supposed source) this does not show that at all. The turn away happens a significant amount of time after 03:00 and Norfolk is back on base course sometime before 03:20, when there is a DR fix triangle, isn't there? The offset is nothing like ten miles. The track recorded is not unrealistic straight lines but looks to have been generated by an early automatic plotter using gyro and revolutions to drive a pen unit across a chart.
The same generous party sent me Suffolk's Strategical plan which shows the navigational correction applied at 08;51 to be on a heading of 288 degrees (my measurement) by about 20 miles. It says "corrected to CS1's 08:00 ref position". Can you explain the relationship between this and your decision to apply.
I do appreciate you "telling" me things but I also reserve the right to decide whether I think they are correct or not. When you sayI told you that communicated geographical positions by Suffolk should be moved 25 sea miles on true bearing 260°-270°west.
does that mean you have compared Norfolk's first estimate to your estimate of Mearn's wreck location?Similarly I told you that Norfolk communicated geographical positions should be moved 10 sea miles west on true bearing 230°-240°
All the best