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

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Postby wadinga » Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:59 am

Hello Antonio,

Thank you for another rendition of your preferred scenario, again showing Suffolk closing to a little more than 10 miles from Norfolk which several contributors consider is unlkely since the two ships remained invisble to one another.

Interestingly the rendered course for Suffolk in your diagram, based on the spurious and unexplained positions recorded on the Norfolk Strat map and transposed here, show a course between the two positions of 215 degrees. Since nowhere in her own course reports or on her own strat map does Suffolk ever steer south of 220 degrees, we can safely disregard these positions as inaccurate guesswork made in Norfolk at the time. Whatever may have been divined from M/F D/F bearings these positions
could not be.

How inaccurate PoW's position was in absolute terms is largely irrelevant since the charge against Ellis and Wake-Walker summarised in the DoD is that they were close to PoW based around the clearly guesstimated relative positions of the southern end of Plan 13 and the action plot. Since their starting positions on the action plot/plan 13 are based solely on their reported earlier positions plotted onto PoW's chart, and their subsequent end positions derived on their own or estimated courses to match Bismarck's reported course, we can discount the positions shown at 05:41 and 05:37 as incorrect and therefore the DoD and any Polygon of Perfidy is incorrect. If we had the gridded version of the southern end of Plan 13 we would know whether Norfolk was depicted where she reported she was, or where PoW's plotter had guessed she would be. Norfolk radioed 63deg 39min N 31 10W, where does Plan 13 show her?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

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

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Mon Dec 26, 2016 9:15 am

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

first of all I hope that you like everybody else on this forum had a good and peaceful Christmas time with your loved ones.

This said lets move back on our common passion and interest, the re-construction of this battle and the night before tracks, which is the argument of this thread.

The difference between you and me on doing this work is that I have no preferred scenario at all, ... I am just progressively make it more and more precise and supported by the available evidences, ... in order to publish it one day with a good enough confidence level that it does correspond to the reality as best as we can demonstrate, ... while you for sure do have at least one scenario that apparently you are not willing to accept no matter what, ... as we can read above, ... but I understand the reasons behind all this, ... even if I cannot support an approach like that being an historian researcher with a NO side taken approach.

On this regard, ... you must make a good guess, ... and get ready to accept the truth pretty soon, ... :think:

We are now at the point that we have a good enough Hood and PoW track, we have been able to correctly correlate the Norfolk track using the 02.29 bearing and now we are at the point to do the same for the Suffolk tracks.

We have some bearings from Norfolk from own map, at 03.20 and 05.41, ... and we have several from PoW on the plan 13, ... we have at the end some from Suffolk to PoW during the battle on her own report and radio messages.

It does not take much to reduce on correct scale the Suffolk official own track like I did for the Norfolk and place it on the correct grid like the Norfolk one, ... using the available bearings, ...and once it fits all the references, ... the work is done.

At the end this is for sure the most realiable way to depict the events using the official available evidences we have.

You should have realized by now that I do not care where PoW on plan 13 plotted Suffolk or Norfolk and their tracks depicted, ... largely incorrect as you correctly said above, ... I only care about the Norfolk and Suffolk bearings from PoW reported on that plan 13, ... just on those bearings, ... to correctly place the original Suffolk and Norfolk track I have from the correct PoW track I traced on the grid as a correct reference base.

If you take now form PoW Plan 13 the Suffolk bearings available at 03.11 and 03.36 and define a good enough one at 03.20-03.21, ... traced with a GREEN line on the map below, ...you will realize that it will cross on the grid map that 03.20 point of Norfolk ... and that will fix the Suffolk track position up there.

SK_NK_PoW_at _0320_01.jpg
SK_NK_PoW_at _0320_01.jpg (76.51 KiB) Viewed 439 times


@ CAG,

you wrote :

Again thank you Wadinga and Antonio for your help, and to all those who offer advice, sometimes debates become a little heated on the forum but the generosity of people in helping others shines out. Many thanks


You are welcome and I hope you are having good time studying this map and realizing the truth, ... progressively.


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: 1027
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

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

Postby Herr Nilsson » Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:01 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,
...

The difference between you and me on doing this work is that I have no preferred scenario at all, ... I am just progressively make it more and more precise and supported by the available evidences, ... in order to publish it one day with a good enough confidence level that it does correspond to the reality as best as we can demonstrate, ... while you for sure do have at least one scenario that apparently you are not willing to accept no matter what, ... as we can read above, ... but I understand the reasons behind all this, ... even if I cannot support an approach like that being an historian researcher with a NO side taken approach.

...


ROFL ...Antonio, thank you so much, you made my day. The Italian sense of humor is obviously even better than the British. :clap:
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

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

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Mon Dec 26, 2016 12:16 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

of course Marc, ... that is obvious, ... we Italians are supported by thousand years of traditions on literature ... so it is not so difficult to have also a good enough sense of humour ... while you are describing one thing ... and your reasons.

Now I have to complete this work to become your " hero " ... if I recall correctly your words ... :wink:

I think you surely already realized that I am getting very close to it now ... more and more as time passes ...

BTW, ... this Christmas took away from me also the potential " scoop " of the real Suffolk and Norfolk distances from the enemy immediately before and during the DS battle, ... so after Graham Rhys-Jones took away the court martial one I had to accept that somebody else arrived to my same conclusions also in this case.

Someone gave me as a gift the David J. Bercuson and Holger H. Herwig book, ... and at page 153 I read the statement : "... on the British cruisers Suffolk and Norfolk, still trailing the German task force ten to twelve nautical ( sea ) miles off to the east ".

As you can see not only me, ... the Baron Von Mullenheim-Rechberg ...and the post war Capt Elis declarations, ... are stating that the 2 county class heavy cruisers where much closer then officially declared on that timeframe.

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: 1095
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

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

Postby paulcadogan » Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:25 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Someone gave me as a gift the David J. Bercuson and Holger H. Herwig book, ... and at page 153 I read the statement : "... on the British cruisers Suffolk and Norfolk, still trailing the German task force ten to twelve nautical ( sea ) miles off to the east ".

As you can see not only me, ... the Baron Von Mullenheim-Rechberg ...and the post war Capt Elis declarations, ... are stating that the 2 county class heavy cruisers where much closer then officially declared on that timeframe.


Hi Antonio,

BE CAREFUL how you quote Bercusson and Herwig's book. It is FULL of confusion and misinterpretation, as I'm sure you will easily see as you read it.

Here is a fuller quote from the paragraph for everyone's benefit:

Lutjens did not for a moment contemplate withdrawing the heavy cruiser to the lee of fire - .....but rather kept her in the line.(43) Within minutes of concentrating on Prince of Wales, Commander Jasper noted two detonations and a "small fire" on the enemy battleship.(44) Next Lutjens ordered the Prinz Eugen to drop back, off the Bismarck's starboard side. There she could train her FuMO-27 radar detectors on the British cruisers Suffolk and Norfolk, still trailing the German task force ten to twelve nautical miles off to the east.


This paragraph is a conundrum of disparate facts that are merged by the authors creating a misleading impression. First Lutjens did not "contemplate" taking the Prinz out of the line, having just ordered her to take on PoW yet "next" he orders her to drop back along Bismarck's starboard side to monitor the British cruisers?? LOL! :lol: We all know very well that latter order was given hours after the battle was over and it was to check the oil slick. Even Jasper's info is confused - they are presenting his observation of "two portside strikes" - i.e, overs (Jasper could not see PoW's port side!) which Jasper actually attributed to Bismarck's secondaries - and his later observation of a small fire when PoW was passing the sinking Hood as hits by PG on PoW. They do not give a reference for the distances to Suffolk and Norfolk they quote. The Baron said 12 to 15, not 10 to 12.

So, even if they agree with you, I would not put much credibility on unsubstantiated statements in that book, and also readers must check references very carefully as even the referenced statements are not trustworthy!

Happy Holidays to all!

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

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

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:39 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Paul Cadogan,

many thanks for having highlighted that to me, ... in fact I was already having concerns with that statement before the taken measures of the 2 British heavy cruisers.

Anyhow, ... those measures are NOT the usually and famous " around 15 sea miles " invented by Adm Tovey while writing his dispatches at point 17 ... probably referencing RearAdm Wake-Walker report point 9 ... that now thanking Herr Nilsson we have discovered do belong to some not really precise timeframe but before 05.35 even on Adm Tovey dispatches ... :think:

It is very interesting the fact that they wrote " 10 to 12 " and not even the Baron " 12 to 15 " they could have easily referenced to ... :think:

In any case I really do not care about that distance, ... given the fact that Capt Ellis clearly told us after the war that it was NOT correct, ... at least for his cruiser, ... and we do know how many times RearAdm Wake-Walker changed that distance as well between the first and the second board, ... and this already tells the whole story.

Now, ... using the bearings and their original tracks in scale, ... I am going just to take what comes out ... while the rest is well known now and can be written on the comments section while explaining the sources, ... the changes made, ... and the reasons for that to have occurred.

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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Postby wadinga » Tue Dec 27, 2016 12:04 am

Hello Antonio and all,

Firstly Season's greetings to all. :D

I hope your friend will not be insulted if I suggest you exchange your B & H for a house brick or a door wedge as either will do a better job at say, holding papers down or keeping a door open. Paul is correct, this book is riddled with factual errors and unwarranted assertions. Virtually every page of my copy has the disparaging comments I could not forbear from writing- and I really hate writing in books. :negative:

I am surprised at your latest:

you will realize that it will cross on the grid map that 03.20 point of Norfolk ... and that will fix the Suffolk track position up there.


Firstly, taking M/F D/F bearings with their intrinsic errors from two different ships whose tracks are only related by one such risky bearing itself is bad enough. Especially since the one risky bearing is about 068T ie almost right angles to the other risky bearings. Thus Norfolk could be 10 to 100 miles away on 068T. However even if you were to be correct, then you have fixed Suffolk approximately 47 miles NW of PoW and since she and Suffolk steer pretty much the same course for the next few hours, they must surely remain approximately the same distance apart around 05:41.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

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

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:46 am

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I personally try to respect everybody else works as much as I can, ... :angel: ... even if I can agree with you that some are really NOT so good as overall result, ... and this one seems the case despite the very good and complete reference used and the surely good overall competences of the authors.

Anyhow, ... that 10 to 12 sea miles was something really surprising me while reading thru it, ... of course, ... :wink:

Lets go back on our preferred subject, ... those tracks ... :think:

You surely remember that I started fixind the grid and the Hood and PoW tracks, ... and I invite everybody here in to verify and challenge them as much as they can, ... so we can make a really precise overall work.

After I reduced in scale the Norfolk original track, ... from her own strategical plot, ... and once we had agreed that only the 02.29 bearing was valid while the other inputs were NOT reliable, ... and I thank once again everybody here in for the very valid and positive help on realizing/confirming it, ... I placed the Norfolk track on the grid with a good enough reference to PoW.

Using the Norfolk bearing to Suffolk at 03.20 and 05.41 from her own map, I had at hand the direction where Suffolk was at given time from the Norfolk.

On the same way I used the PoW Plan 13 to determine the Suffolk bearings from PoW, ... at 03.20, ... and by crossing that line with the Norfolk one at 03.20, ... we surely can have a precise enough position of Suffolk at 03.20.

Now I can reduce in scale on the same way I did for the Norfolk also the Suffolk track from her own original strategical map, ... and position it on the grid map exactly like I did for the Norfolk, ... and once I will do that, ... if the 05.41 will be a match and the same will be for the subsequent set of available bearings after it, ... at open fire and thru the battle, ... until 06.20, ... then I think we can close the discussion here in about those tracks relative positioning.

Do you agree with me on the approach using only the officially available information ?

It is important for me, because it will enable me to become Marc ( Herr Nilsson ) " hero " , and I do care about it now ... :wink:

Season's greetings to everybody, ... now I go for some Tirpitz 1/100 modeling for a good Norwegian friend of mine that likes to see his model finished before he will leave us forever, ... and I need to finish it up before the next summer, ... after having delivered 7 models of Tirpitz in scale 1/350, ... fully detailed with photo etched parts and with all the Tirpitz technical and camouflage evolutions thru her life, ... used to make the books 3D's, ... to my books co-author Robert, ... that enjoyed a lot this Christmas gift ... :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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3081
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

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

Postby dunmunro » Tue Dec 27, 2016 5:00 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:

Using the Norfolk bearing to Suffolk at 03.20 and 05.41 from her own map, I had at hand the direction where Suffolk was at given time from the Norfolk.

On the same way I used the PoW Plan 13 to determine the Suffolk bearings from PoW, ... at 03.20, ... and by crossing that line with the Norfolk one at 03.20, ... we surely can have a precise enough position of Suffolk at 03.20.



Take the bearings given and add 2 and subtract 2 degrees from each bearing. That will give about the best accuracy that could be hoped for with with DF bearings. Instead of a precise location, one ends up with a rather vague suggestion that Suffolk is somewhere to the northwest.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

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

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:20 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

I would agree with you, ... but the final result will be by far more accurate then any other available map made until today.

The same tolerance apply to every bearing from any warship, ... so we can use what they measured ... and write in the bottom of the map the assumed tolerances.

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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Postby wadinga » Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:12 am

Hello Antonio,

Duncan is of course correct to emphasise the errors inherent. Firstly,

I placed the Norfolk track on the grid with a good enough reference to PoW.
Since the trigonometrical baseline between Norfolk and PoW is so narrow, an error of a mile or so up or down the track of the former will make an enormous variation in Suffolk's position. Hence we don't have

we surely can have a precise enough position of Suffolk at 03.20.


There are only three useful bearings on Norfolk's track. The 02:29 D/F and her visual bearing to the BCF at 05:50 at 220T. And of course when PoW formed up 1.5 miles astern of Norfolk.

I am still trying to create a reliable grid for the Norfolk Strat map. When I have it I expect to see the plotted positions for Suffolk are merely her own inaccurate reports and thus the bearings derived from these inaccurate locations are spurious.

I wish you every success with your model for your Norwegian friennd- you are doing a fine thing :clap: :clap: :clap:

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

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

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:52 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I disagree with your way to read this.

I have already done the job for Norfolk and Suffolk and all fits nicely, ... before, after and in between.

One day on a published book everybody will see it.

I wish you every success with your model for your Norwegian friennd - you are doing a fine thing :clap: :clap: :clap:


Many thanks for this, ... I failed, ... Trygve passed away, ... but my duty remains, ... with no more hurry, ... but with a stronger commitment now for a great modeler friend I met in my life.

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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 905
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Postby wadinga » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:37 pm

All,

I see now that my arguments for Suffolk's position at about 05:40 being grossly in error on PoW's plan 4, and therefore Antonio's Polygon of Perfidy being incorrect about this vessel, have persuaded Alberto at least, hence:

I already explained you that Suffolk was NOT in a position to distinguish from around 20 sm who was firing between BS and PG due to relative positions (the German ships were exactly one behind the other from SF) . She was at 32 sm from Hood and I STROGLY doubt she could record her very first salvo with any precision.


The position shown is based completely on dead reckoning from her earlier inaccurate radio position and whatever "mast" Busch saw at 9 miles on 15 degrees was clearly a figment of his imagination. If Suffolk reported gun flashes when Holland opened fire who is somebody who wasn't there to say what they reported is impossible!

Now there are hardly any posters left who believe in the dimensions of the Polygon of Perfidy, can we consign it to the "discredited dustbin along with the reversed photo theory? Also of course the allegations against W-W, Phillips, Ellis, and their respective crews?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

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

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:46 pm

Hi Sean,
please don't try to put in my mouth things that I have NEVER said....... :wink:

1) According to Pinchin's Plot, Suffolk, at open fire was 21 sm away from Bismarck and 36 sm from Hood (please take the time to measure on the "Plot")
2) According to Antonio's (much more realistic) reconstruction, Suffolk was at 17 sm from Bismarck and 32 sm from Hood ,after her turn away to north due to the "mirage".
3) According to Antonio's Polygon however, she was at 10 sm from Germans BEFORE her turn to north as this is the timing for the Polygon (between 5:35 and 5:41).
Now you have to decide when the turn to north was done, just before (Ellis official report) or just after the open fire (Ellis autobiography)...... :think:

Do you have any alternative to Pinchin's or Antonio's distances ? :negative:


Re. the Polygon details, I leave to Antonio to better explain you how it is built. I see that Busch's bearing and distances are a bit annoying for you..... but they have been cross-checked and confirmed in Antonio's work.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:33 pm, edited 7 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

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

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:47 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

please avoid to write other non sense from your side given your very limited capability to understand what you are talking about.

When you will be able to put on a map a couple of tracks and explain us what you would like to sustain or demonstrate, ... just do it, ... so we can try to realize what you want to say.

More, when referring to my works, please use educated terms talking about them and just stick to the facts, ... just like I am doing.

I will not tolerate any other " nickname " about my works, ... and I will react accordingly.

Enough said ...

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 )


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest