May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Re: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ All,

in this attached " Navigators quick reference card " you can find the meaning of the 2 triangles traced into the Norfolk strategical plot clearly positioning the Suffolk ( thru her own radio bearing ) at 03.20 and at 05.41.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE : Please notice the difference between the " Estimated position " symbol which is a square, and the " Known position " which is a triangle. This because we can see both of them into the Norfolk, Suffolk and PoW maps, confirming that they knew what they were tracing and knew the differences between the 2 symbols.
Simple and irrefutable.
Navigators_quick_reference_card_02.jpg
I suggest anybody interested to discuss this topic to take a basic course before writing any statement :
Kessler_Navigation_Course.jpg
More, just like I did for the Norfolk track, also the Suffolk strategical map track once in exact scale, is a perfect match according to the 2 defined positions ( 03.20 and 05.41 ) into the Norfolk strategical map and versus the Hood/PoW properly traced track into the grid.

It fits pefectly there, it fits perfectly after during the DS battle and at 06.20 too, ... as well as it fits perfectly before backwards until the 19.23 of May 23rd, 1941.

I have just used their 2 original tracks and only correctly positioned them according to known evaluated references, ... after a long, detailed and careful study, ... and it all fits perfectly.

The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks are just not properly positioned into the grid, ... as we all know very well due to their own navigational positioning errors, ... once you know how to resolve that, ... it all fits nicely, ... as I already showed to you with the Norfolk track example.

Still, if somebody is so willing to sustain a different version of the facts and of those 2 tracks ( Norfolk and Suffolk ), ... be my guest and show them to us.

Please realize your own map and show us all where according to you where the Norfolk and Suffolk all the way thru that night.

Enough said ... as the above should close the debate ... I suppose ... :think:

Bye Antonio :D
That means PoW always knew Suffolk's and Norfolk's position, but never her own. Simple and irrefutable!
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: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi all,
known vs estimated positions (triangles vs squares) ? Perhaps the fog of war ? :wink:

It would be very convenient at this point...... :think: However Antonio's DoD (Diamond of Death) still stands, in the total absence of ANY alternative map presented by ANYBODY here (except the "poor" Pinchin one). :negative:

Good luck Mr. Cag for your work !


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:37 am, 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)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ All,

it does really NOT matter if the Navigation Officer tracing his own map defined his own warship position " known - triangle " or " estimated-squared " like in the case of PoW maps, ... it can be considered just a pure self awareness of not being 100 % sure of his own geographical positioning and by the way he was absolutely right on doing so, ... since at the end ALL the positions were incorrect from a pure geographical positioning stand point.

It simply means that on Norfolk the Officer was only more self confident then on PoW about his own warship precise geographical positioning.

More, it will even NOT matter at all if the other warships position was showed with a " known - triangle " or " estimated-squared ", ... because what I take from those maps is simply the bearing, ... not the geographical position itself and not the distances showed of course.
NK_to_SK_bearings_0320_0541_01.jpg
NK_to_SK_bearings_0320_0541_01.jpg (104.55 KiB) Viewed 1049 times
In this regard a " known - triangle " or " estimated-squared ", is the same for me, ... like it is the same for the " arrows " used on PoW maps to show the taken radio bearing.

Of course a position defined " known - triangle " is a more solid input for my bearing evaluation, ... because who traced the map was having an higher confidence on the input received, ... so I am on the right side with the 03.20 and 05.41 inputs ... :wink:

In case of a " bearing conflict", I analyze the another one before and after, all the other inputs available and then I decide which one is the more reliable one.

I will be the first one to congratulate anybody doing anything better then me of course, ...

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:47 am, 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 )
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Thanks for the wishes of luck as I will definitely need them!

The trouble is at the moment delving into this I'm also trying to work out a corroborated time line and work out the maps in terms of how accurate they are.

For example we have eye witness reports from those involved with the Walrus aircraft of abandoning the plane after the Funnel hit and seeing Hoods bows a beam of them it being masked by the superstructure and then seeing it astern as PoW continued on her course.

This matches other testimony including Hunter-Terry and Brooke. I realise that this is memory and is prone to error but when one finds continuity in seperate evidence it must mean something and may help a timeline/distance travelled figure.

Another example is Rowell's map. If we look at the Hood website and look at Denmark Strait references and in the times and distances section we have speeds in knots and distances travelled at that speed per minute.

28 knots 945yds per minute
29 knots 978.9yds per minte

If we look at Rowell's map, which remember he admits is a reconstruction and maybe two minutes in error, and using the scale of 1 inch = 2000yds and roughly measure the distance between 05.55 and 06.00 we get a rough distance of around 2 5/8ths inches or 5250yds (in this we are just measuring distance but remember there was also a turn in this time frame).

5250÷5 minutes= 1050 yds per minute which according to the Hood website 1046 yds per minute is 31knots. Is this accurate and was PoW travelling at over 31 knots? If she had been doing the generally accepted 29 knots that distance (again forgetting any losses in the turn) would be 4894.5 yds.

Be assured I'm not saying that this proves any wrong doing by Rowell or it is part of any perceived cover up, I am definitely not but it does show that Dunmonro is correct in that it is very difficult to accurately judge anything using separated tracks.

I have placed tracks together using the recorded sighting bearings and things eventually do line up including the Norfolk to PoW 110° noted in her log at 06.40. But I'm afraid I cannot say with any certainty that any time distance or bearing is 100% acurate and so at best I can only estimate things.

I still have a lot of work to do in between work and life and certainly appreciate how hard Antonio has worked to create his maps. I would suggest the more people that attempt a map the better as the more results we have the better chance we have of getting a definitive map.

I'll keep on working it out
Best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

you wrote :
I still have a lot of work to do in between work and life and certainly appreciate how hard Antonio has worked to create his maps.
Many thanks for your appreciation, ... :D
I would suggest the more people that attempt a map the better as the more results we have the better chance we have of getting a definitive map.
I completely agree with you, ... at least some will immediately understand a lot easily how incorrect they are with some of their current statements ... :clap:

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 )
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Just to say if anyone can help with the Rowell map as I'm still trying to figure it out as PoW log shows 239 mean revs per minute up to 06.00 and 231.9 to 07.00 which of course provides no answer.

Her log states full speed after 05.05 and the wind direction was north. I did think of currents etc but again it is conjecture.

This also applies to her GAR as the two maps are very close. I have been working with the plan 4 PoW map but even this has its problems. The time spent on course 300° was I believe from 05.49 to 05.55 or 6 minutes. The time spent on the 280° course was 05.55 to 06.00 or 5 minutes. Yet the distance line on course 300° is shorter than that on 280°?

I've tried to work out if this was due to weather etc but without facts I can only guess, I presume their maps are correct as they are done by experts and I've messed up somewhere.

I am happy with the witness testimony which helps placing the hits on PoW into a timeline in comparison to Hood sinking if we could get her distance travelled per minute understood it would give us a time in which PoW could have passed Hood (some 900 yards away on a bearing of 260° from PoW).

Hood I presume did not stop dead at the explosion and must have moved forwards somewhat during her lists to starboard and port so it may have taken a minute or so for PoW to draw alongside whilst undertaking her avoidance and being hit.

Again all this is at best estimated but does show how hard it is to work out with all the factors to be taken into consideration.

Best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ All,

it does really NOT matter if the Navigation Officer tracing his own map defined his own warship position " known - triangle " or " estimated-squared " like in the case of PoW maps, ... it can be considered just a pure self awareness of not being 100 % sure of his own geographical positioning and by the way he was absolutely right on doing so, ... since at the end ALL the positions were incorrect from a pure geographical positioning stand point.

It simply means that on Norfolk the Officer was only more self confident then on PoW about his own warship precise geographical positioning.

More, it will even NOT matter at all if the other warships position was showed with a " known - triangle " or " estimated-squared ", ... because what I take from those maps is simply the bearing, ... not the geographical position itself and not the distances showed of course.
NK_to_SK_bearings_0320_0541_01.jpg
In this regard a " known - triangle " or " estimated-squared ", is the same for me, ... like it is the same for the " arrows " used on PoW maps to show the taken radio bearing.

Of course a position defined " known - triangle " is a more solid input for my bearing evaluation, ... because who traced the map was having an higher confidence on the input received, ... so I am on the right side with the 03.20 and 05.41 inputs ... :wink:

In case of a " bearing conflict", I analyze the another one before and after, all the other inputs available and then I decide which one is the more reliable one.

I will be the first one to congratulate anybody doing anything better then me of course, ...

Bye Antonio :D
A square means battleship, a triangle means cruiser, an arrow means destroyer.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by wadinga »

Herr Nilsson,

As usual, Perceptive, Pithy, Accurate and Devastating. :clap:

Charting conventions of the 21st century have nothing to do with RN practice in the 1940s. Marc is clearly correct.

I am a little more long-winded :wink:

Antonio, you say
In this regard a " known - triangle " or " estimated-squared ", is the same for me, ... like it is the same for the " arrows " used on PoW maps to show the taken radio bearing.

Of course a position defined " known - triangle " is a more solid input for my bearing evaluation, ... because who traced the map was having an higher confidence on the input received, ... so I am on the right side with the 03.20 and 05.41 inputs ... :wink:
This where you are fundamentally incorrect. You know that the PoW arrows are real information but consider them less valuable than speculative positions created by the very people (those who traced) you accuse of falsifying evidence :shock: In a triumph of circular argument you claim the positions are a result of unrecorded bearings without accepting a position cannot result from a single bearing, and then say the bearing derived from the position is better than a radio bearing because the falsifier who created the position must have had more confidence.

You have the original PoW real-time action plot which shows no radio arrows after 03:36 on Suffolk transmissions or 02:22 on Norfolk and yet you cannot accept the tracks for both ships and their end positions at 05:37 and 05:41 are therefore purely D/R guesswork aboard PoW. These spurious positions are the basis of the Diamond of Death and the Mother Lode of the whole fantastical Conspiracy theory. "Fool's Gold"

This observation is unbelievable:
It simply means that on Norfolk the Officer was only more self confident then on PoW about his own warship precise geographical positioning
PoW could compare with Hood, Norfolk was on his own. Exactly the opposite is true.

CAG

Much effort has been spent explaining to the prosecution how manoeuvring cuts speed below what revs may indicate. To no avail. The super-accelerated timetable is defined, Leach guilty of cowardice, those who honoured him falsifiers. Case closed.

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: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@All,

so reading the above I should consider the HMS Suffolk and HMS Norfolk being 2 destroyers ? :shock:

It seems ridiculous to me ... surely it is not correct ... :think:

Well, lucky me in any case they are still ships, ... with a name and a bearing to them, ... clearly defined, ... no matter what.

This is what really count of course ... :wink:

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:37 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 )
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Cag »

Hi All

If it's ok I'd like to ask a question. The sighted bearings given by ships reports and logs etc, would they be from a gyro compass or other means or do we simply not know?

Obviously this impacts a great deal as if a magnetic compass bearing is being used one has to find the magnetic to true north variance by searching in a magnetic declination or variance calculator. This is inherently difficult as one needs the latitude and longitude to get the variance which one deducts from the bearing to get the true bearing to be used on the chart. At 63° 20N 32° 50W this variance on the 24th May 1941 according to the on line declination calculator would be 34° 55'20" W with a yearly shift of 8.5'E (Therefore a magnetic bearing of 335° would require conversion 335 minus roughly 35° = 300° true).

At the moment I've simply charted the bearings given without correction just to see what we get based on the intersection points of bearings and times of 05.50 Norfolk to BC1 of 220°, the 05.53 bearings of PoW and Norfolk to Bismarck of 335°and 275° and the bearings of 185° of Suffolk of BC1 opening fire, and Norfolk's bearing of 335° to Suffolk opening fire at 06.20.

This I fully accept is unbelievably inaccurate as there are so many variables, time differences on board each ship bearing error due to uncorrected variance and ship compass deviation etc etc etc but does prove why Ellis's stated 18000 yds is described as 'roughly' and most documents state 'approximately'!

At the moment Gentlemen with all these variables which are themselves debatable added into the mix it just proves how difficult a job it was and is! My brain really does hurt!

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

Re: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

the bearings among various units, ... by looking at the photos of HMS Suffolk Sailor Newell, the one that first saw and spotted the Bismarck providing her bearing ... were taken with a round mechanical fixed reference 0 to 360°, ... you can see on his photo.

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: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@All,

so reading the above I should consider the HMS Suffolk and HMS Norfolk being 2 destroyers ? :shock:

It seems ridiculous to me ... surely it is not correct ... :think:
As always you're absolutely right and I'm wrong, because you say so.

Image

Image
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you wrote :
As always you're absolutely right and I'm wrong, because you say so.
No at all, ... there have been situations were I was wrong and you were right, ... many times, ... and many others, ... like this one, ... were I am right and you are wrong.

That is perfectly fine for me and I have never had any personal problem with it, ... admitting my many failures, ... in fairness.

In this case I am referring to a PoW map where the Suffolk and the Norfolk positions ( bearings ) at a given time are indicated with arrows.

It is obvious that they are not 2 destroyers.

I am sure you will agree with me on this Marc.

But again, ... I can see that standard symbols could have been changing thru the years, I am ok with it.

What I took are the bearings among known units on some original maps ... despite the symbols used to identify them.

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: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Good one. LOL
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Thanks Antonio, I would assume that the bearings on the Pinchin map are, if it was necessary, already corrected as they are already on the chart.

The ones that I'm wondering about are the 05.50 log entry of Norfolk and the Suffolk 05.53 report. Hopefully they were gyro compass repeater bearings and need no correction.

Best wishes
Cag.
Post Reply