Bismarck heading west..

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck heading west..

Post by alecsandros »

... It is rather peculiar that after discussing here, and being heavily contradicted by evidence, Paul still published a 22-pg article ! :shock:

What is even more peculiar is that he did not try to explain, in any way, WHY and HOW did Leech, Luetjens, Hunter-Terry, etc, etc, ALL put 6:00 or eve 6:01 on their writings. Collective psychosis perhaps ?

He also lacks explanations and details onto Bismarck's method of battery firings (they were firing semi-salvos, and we do not know the precise intervals BETWEEN the semi-salvos. The Prinz EUgen film sheds some light, but we do not know the Hood firing sequence, nor the exact second of opening fire).

He lacks critical info on timing, such as:

START OF TRANSCRIPTION

Item 5, Page 1

. . .At 0537 hrs. on 24.5.41 a County Class cruiser was sighted steering a course of 240°T at an estimated speed of 28 kts. and at the same time gunfire was seen well ahead. As we closed, two columns, each of two ships in line ahead, were steering on parallel courses at an estimated range of 12 miles between columns. Heavy gunfire was being exchanged and the leading ship of the port hand column was on fire in two places, one being at the base of the bridge superstructure and the other further aft. In spite of these large conflagrations she appeared to be firing from at least one turret forward and aft. (This ship was found afterwards to be "HOOD").

Page 2

At this juncture no engaged ships had been identified and I instructed the pilot to proceed towards the starboard column of ships. The second ship of this line (BISMARCK) (sic) was making a considerable amount of smoke which appeared to come from near the mainmast on the port side. Oil was also escaping and leaving a broad streak in the water behind her.

"As we approached the two ships were identified as enemy and a first sighting report was made at 0410 hrs. Immediately prior to this an explosion was noticed on the burning ship of the port column (HOOD) and at the same time we came under A.A. fire from the enemy, and were forced to take cloud cover at 2500ft. On emerging from cloud some five minutes later, the HOOD had almost completely disappeared and only one part of the bow was showing"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck heading west..

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

I have read the article, and found it very valuable, very well written and trying to address some of the question marks still existing in the battle reconstruction. Some parts of the article are a very good starting points for further evaluations. Very interesting work, Paul ! :clap:

However I tend to be in agreement with Alecsandros as the article is not able to dismiss all the evidences pointing to 6:00 as the precise timing for HMS Hood explosion, the most important being Leach own declaration, Rowell battle map, PoW gunnery map, Hunter-Terry precise timings, the war diary of PG (stating 6:00:30) and the message of Lutjens who said BS destroyed Hood after 5 minutes fire (Lutjens would have been very proud to inform German authorities that it took just 3 minutes to BS to sink the mighty Hood......) . Also the fact that PG gunnery director Jasper said that at 5:59 he shifted fire to PoW is key as he explained that the order to switch fire came from the flagship to have PoW engaged as well and not due to the Hood explosion.

Wadinga wrote: "Has everybody read Paul Cadogan's excellent new DS article, much closer to reality than the fantastical stuff we have seen recently :clap: :clap: :clap: "
Hi Sean, when you say the article is "much closer to reality than the fantastical stuff we have seen recently", I guess you are referring to the TOTALLY INCORRECT statements that the British Admiralty has proposed (and the book writers have repeated for 73 years, and still repeat in some cases) about PoW retreat time (6:13) and Heavy Cruisers distance from the enemy (> 15 miles) ? :lol:

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)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck heading west..

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:I have read the article, and found it very valuable, very well written and trying to address some of the question marks still existing in the battle reconstruction. Some parts of the article are a very good starting points for further evaluations. Very interesting work, Paul ! :clap:

However I tend to be in agreement with Alecsandros as the article is not able to dismiss all the evidences pointing to 6:00 as the precise timing for HMS Hood explosion, the most important being Leach own declaration, Rowell battle map, PoW gunnery map, Hunter-Terry precise timings, the war diary of PG (stating 6:00:30) and the message of Lutjens who said BS destroyed Hood after 5 minutes fire (Lutjens would have been very proud to inform German authorities that it took just 3 minutes to BS to sink the mighty Hood......) . Also the fact that PG gunnery director Jasper said that at 5:59 he shifted fire to PoW is key as he explained that the order to switch fire came from the flagship to have PoW engaged as well and not due to the Hood explosion.

Wadinga wrote: "Has everybody read Paul Cadogan's excellent new DS article, much closer to reality than the fantastical stuff we have seen recently :clap: :clap: :clap: "
Hi Sean, when you say the article is "much closer to reality than the fantastical stuff we have seen recently", I guess you are referring to the TOTALLY INCORRECT statements that the British Admiralty has proposed (and the book writers have repeated for 73 years, and still repeat in some cases) about PoW retreat time (6:13) and Heavy Cruisers distance from the enemy (> 15 miles) ? :lol:

Bye, Alberto
The problem with "precise timing" is what do we use as a reference? It seems that the best reference is PoW's record of salvos and if we set everything in relation to that, then it seems that PoW must have received 38cm hits that interfered with her gunnery from about 0558-0559, which in turn pushes the fatal hit on Hood back before then. We have accurate timings taken by PoW's fire control team in the Transmitting Station (TS), who could not see the action and be distracted, and who had access to stop watch timings via the AFCT. Paul's reconstruction fits the timings as recorded in PoW's TS. It resolves the puzzling problem of the 5.25in guns and fits with the recorded observation of a heavy hit at salvo 12.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck heading west..

Post by alecsandros »

No, until some explanation is given for all PRIMARY SOURCES that indicate 6:00-6:01, all else is speculation.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck heading west..

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

while I am in total agreement with Alberto and Alecsandros above statements, I like to underline 2 aspects here, even if this is NOT the right thread to do it.

First, Alecsandros wrote :
NO, until some explanation is given for all PRIMARY SOURCES that indicate 6:00-6:01, all else is speculation.
Absolutely true !

... and since the PRIMARY SOUCES are solid like rocks, that is simply never going to happen, just as I have explained on the dedicated thread.
In my personal opinion that is the end of the debate about it.
I take the occasion to remind everybody what Alberto mentioned, since Prinz Eugen Kriegstagebuch ( KTB ) correctly reported 06.00 and 20 seconds being the exact time of Hood explosion. That is UNIQUE on German war diaries entry, since NEVER on any other WW2 German units KTB the seconds have been recorded, and I have them ALL in my archives.

Second, Alberto wrote :
Hi Sean, when you say the article is " much closer to reality than the fantastical stuff we have seen recently ", I guess you are referring to the TOTALLY INCORRECT statements that the British Admiralty has proposed (and the book writers have repeated for 73 years, and still repeat in some cases) about PoW retreat time (6:13) and Heavy Cruisers distance from the enemy (> 15 miles)
Definitively true as well !

Since we are here on 2014 and on 2013 there are STILL book authors that despite a clear Admiralty entry on the Battle Summary Nr 5 of 1948 bringing back the PoW retreat time from the “ incorrect “ 06.13 to a more reasonable 06.03, which is still incorrect but at least NOT incorrect by more than 10 minutes :shock: .

We are NOT talking about a poor copycat unable to understand what he does, we are talking about a well recognized historian writing books since years and teaching history at Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth.

Here following what this author, G.H. Bennett PhD, still writes, on a book whose preface is written by the Royal Navy First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope GBC OBE ADC.

I purchased this book, published on 2013, while being at the Public Record Office in Kew, London on January 2014 :
Tirpitz_book_Bennett_cover.jpg
Tirpitz_book_Bennett_cover.jpg (48.04 KiB) Viewed 3737 times
Bennett_Tirpitz_book_page_8.jpg
Bennett_Tirpitz_book_page_8.jpg (66.07 KiB) Viewed 3737 times
Bennett_curriculum.jpg
Bennett_curriculum.jpg (56.85 KiB) Viewed 3737 times
I do not think any more words are necessary.

This is what we need to ELIMINATE from written books, ... the 06.13 entry for PoW retreat, ... as well as the >of 15 sea miles for the heavy cruisers, ... not even mentioned by Dr. Bennett; ... for him they were simply NOT present there :shock: .

More serious researches/publications and the correct utilization of the available evidences will help future generation to understand how the events 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
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck heading west..

Post by RNfanDan »

Dr. Cadogan has been very careful to avoid setting foot into a pool of concrete, and stand there while it hardens. There are STILL doubts, on the whole, about the timing of Hood's fatal hit. Antonio's hard work and extensive research has led him to conclude as he has done: 06:00, with maybe a small + of some seconds.

Paul has introduced very credible evidence of his own, to support an earlier time. It's only a couple minutes' difference after all, but his case is strong. He is NOT being deliberately contrarian, but simply sticking to his long-held viewpoint that 0:600 is not quite right. I personally have felt that it's not quite right, too. Paul has not used "disproven" evidences while doing so, either. The best that can be said of the case made by others, is that it is equally worthy of believing.

Belief, not certainty.

There's only ONE exact moment and ONE exact cause for the explosion which destroyed HMS Hood. If anyone here has a time machine and can take us back to that day, we'd all know, wouldn't we? Until then, the best anyone can do is remain open to the obvious---that it will never be known to the exact moment--and until then, any valid, well-reasoned viewpoint is to be considered, without offense or derision of the fine people who have allowed us all to share in their efforts.

None of the views that have been presented at length, are wild-hare theories or the convoluted, obfuscated trollery that has reared its head at this forum in previous years.

In an earlier discussion at another K-Bismarck thread, we had seen a very wide array of evidentiary timings presented. At one point, a sort of "spreadsheet" of variable evidences, drawn from both primary and secondary sources, was posted; the process used to derive the "current" time conclusion of 06:00, was to essentially throw out the high and low figures, then average the rest. This is good enough for some purposes, but it is an invalid means of concluding the matter.

AN EXACT TIME MAY NEVER BE PROVEN. PERIOD! The best we can ever hope for is an approximation. We are all down to within a couple minutes' time, either way. Obstinate dependence on one conclusion is folly---not necessarily because it's inaccurate, but simply because it cannot be definitively PROVEN.

This is the wrong topical thread to debate the discussion of Dr. Cadogan's paper, anyway. We all know the wonderful effort and care taken by our good friend to reach his goal of resolving the moment of Hood's death pyre. Now it's time to allow another good friend HIS chance to present support and evidence for a different moment. If there is anyone who feels at odds with one or the other, perhaps even to the point of believing in a THIRD moment, and is willing to put an honest, serious effort into supporting that opinion, BRING IT ON!

Just don't bring it HERE at this inappropriate thread. Please.

Thank you to all, and have a wonderful discussion on the "westward leading" !

(RNfan)Dan Blackburn
Image
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck heading west..

Post by alecsandros »

Writing long posts or long articles doesn't make them "more believable". The primary sources ALL indicate 6:00 or later. Please, get some sense.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck heading west..

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Alecsandros :clap:

@RNfanDan: you are right re. the choice of the thread: please see my answer in the right one: "Hood sinking: the timing of that fatal hit"

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)
Post Reply