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

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi all,
known vs estimated positions ? triangles vs squares vs arrows ? cruisers vs battleships vs destroyers ? What are we speaking about gentlemen ?

I repeat, Antonio's DoD (Diamond of Death) is still valid (as it is based on bearings only, not on positions or distances), in the total absence of ANY alternative map (or timetable...) presented by ANYBODY here (despite being very "perceptive, pithy, accurate, devastating or long-winded" )

Again, thanks to Antonio for your reconstruction and thanks to Mr.Cag for attempting such a heavy (but productive) work.


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

You still don't get it do you?

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.

You are using the words positions and bearings interchangeably as if they are the same thing. You are looking at the points where the radio bearings intercept the guesswork tracks of Norfolk and Suffolk assuming that means something. But it just means the transmitter is somewhere along that bearing (plus or minus X degrees. Since the tracks are entirely guessed, where the bearing intersects them is immaterial. The dotted bearing arrows (not destroyer tracks), from PoW are drawn 10 miles long on the action plot because the recorder has no idea whether Suffolk is 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 etc miles away. It is only a bearing, not a position. For convenience he has limited drawing them to about 5 miles either side of the guessed track of Suffolk. There are no marks where the arrow intersects the guessed track because it has no real significance.

As I pointed out

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

There are no actual D/F bearings of Suffolk from Norfolk recorded anywhere in logbook or diagrammatic form. There are no actual D/F bearings of Norfolk from Suffolk recorded anywhere in logbook or diagrammatic form. Wake Walker records that some bearings on Suffolk and proved useful. They probably were, but they did not allow anybody to draw little triangles at 03:20 and 05:41because they could not give positions and there could be nothing that Norfolk's navigator would know to allow such positioning with confidence, since even Suffolk didn't know where they were.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Q.E.D.
(a total absence of ANY alternative map from ANYBODY).

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

@Antonio

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

Your own post from Oct 27, 2014:

...
NOTE :

Triangle = Cruiser

Square = Battleship

I found it on other British maps ... of Op. Rheinubung ...

I think you're trying to jerk us around.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Q.E.D.
A total absence of ANY alternative map from ANYBODY. Antonio's DoD is today the only positions explanation after....Pinchin....

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

The "validity" of the DoD leaves a lot to be desired.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Any alternative (complete) DoD, please ?

Q.E.D.

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

@Alberto,

*sigh* To what point in time does the DoD relate? 0535?

[Alberto Virtuani]

I will be happy with any time you choose for your own version (complete with all ships,/relative bearings, of course)......

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

Thank you for not answering the question.

[Alberto Virtuani]

5:41, as Antonio has already told you. (please read above posts before asking already answered questions).

Thank you for confirming that you are unable to post ANY alternative map yourself (at any time).


Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

Well, IIRC I have posted much more maps than you did. Where is your map by the way? If you to deign to draw your own map you will notice that Antonio's map is flawed.

I read the above posts. So why does the DoD caption refer to 0535, if it's used at 0541??

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6323&start=405#p71461

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nilsson wrote:: "I have posted much more maps than you did. "

Where ?
I have not posted a map myself because I always said that I rely on Antonio's reconstruction, missing something better.

I have never seen your battlemap or even your DoD: you have said time ago that you are unable/unwilling to post any map, being "over self-critical".....perhaps I lost something from you, can you post it NOW HERE ?

You should post your version, or at least, as I do, rely on another one (possibly Pinchin's one in your case ?), if you want to discuss in a productive way this topic.


Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

Herr Nilsson wrote:: "I have posted much more maps than you did. "

Where ?
I have not posted a map myself because I always said that I rely on Antonio's reconstruction, missing something better.

I have not seen your battlemap or even your DoD because you have always said you are unable/unwilling to post any map, being "over self-critical".....perhaps I lost something, can you post it NOW HERE ?

You should post your version (or at least say that you trust Pinchin's one.....) if you want to discuss in a productive way this topic.


Bye, Alberto

I suggest rereading "The Plot" or "Cover up synopsis". You will find a lot of maps and even DoDs. Feel free to search for them. In any case much there are more than you have ever produced.
I like your QED by the way. This is very productive.

So what about using the 0535 DoD at 0541? You say you're relying on Antonio's reconstruction. Then it should be very easy for you to explain. If not, I recommend to draw your own map.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ All,

well, ... I will accept very easily any correction within the " due tolerances " always declared many times above, ... as long as my point is consequently absolutely confirmed and we do not need to discuss about it any longer.

I mean the 03.20 and 05.41 checkpoints bearings ( NOT positions ) between Norfolk and Suffolk tracks as for the Norfolk strategical map I have posted above, ... the ones I have always generally assumed being around 320°.

Once this concept and evaluation process is clear and agreed, lets proceed with the details of them now.

@ Herr Nilsson,

working now to the finally commonly accepted 05.41 checkpoint between Norfolk and Suffolk, we need to move into the " PoW Plan 4 polygon " or the DoD as you are calling it now.

We have some inputs at 05.35, at 05.37 and some inputs at 05.41.

In this regard, working on the top right side of it, we have several inputs.
We can go from the 318° to the 325°, if I read it correctly on your above example at 05.41 from the Norfolk Strategical map.

In order to close the right side of the polygon, also the right side bottom part is needed.
If I recall correctly we can go from 10° to 24° inputs on that one on several different maps.

I saw your 325° example for the top right part from the Norfolk Strategical Map, ... what is your current evaluation for the bottom right part now ? From where are you going to take it ?

I saw a 20°for that, ... based on my work on the tracks PoW+Norfolk , ... is this OK for you now ?

Bottom line, you agree about the validity of my overall map approach but you are correcting my bearing evaluations from 320° to 325° for the right upper part and from 18° to 20° for the bottom right part of the polygon at 05.41.

Is this what I have to understand from your above inputs ?

Bye Antonio