The Plot

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Steve Crandell wrote: "1) Leach was aware of PoW's 14in gunnery problems and the lack of any output from the 5.25in guns. He could see that both Bismarck and PE had good output from all weapons systems, 2) and he knew that W-W's two cruisers were not in a position to effectively engage either KM ship. 3) He knew that he was outside his immune zone and vulnerable to crippling hits and that PE was also armed with torpedoes. RN tactical considerations dictated that he should open the range ASAP."
Hi Steve,

1) Leach couldn't know better than McMullen what was the status of his main battery and McMullen stated that "everything was fine with guns". The 5,25" battery "was now in action" as per Leach own statement in his account. If the 5,25" battery was then put out of action, for sure Leach ignored the fact, as he couldn't be aware (after the hit in CP) of the real damage caused by the subsequent hits n.2 and n.3....... Again Leach himself at the end of his different, conflicting messages admitted very clearly in his narrative that the reason for disengaging was just his lack of confidence in the guns, in the gunnery dept and in the overall readiness of the ship......

2) You are right: he was completely alone thanks to the "timid" (I'm trying to be very diplomatic here) manoeuvres of the 2 heavy cruisers after 5:41 . At that time (with the "Enemy in sight" already issued), both were in position to effectively engage (10 miles from enemy for Suffolk and 12 for Norfolk) and both did the opposite (Suffolk with the turn to north, Norfolk with the "outrageous arc").

3) He was out of his immune zone as Holland was with the Hood since the beginning of the battle.... sometimes in war you need to risk your life to accomplish your duty, you cannot always be 100% sure that you will win.
However, even putting this concept of "immunity zone" consideration before the RN traditions, once the Hood gone, he could just open range while fighting, not decide to disengage (as per his own admission, he never spoke of opening range, in no message/narrative).
I have said several times on other threads that, if really he couldn't fight out of his immunity zone, he could order a 200° course to open range while continuing the engagement and getting back into his immunity zone, not order a 160° turn UNDER SMOKE, as this is not a manoeuvre to "open range", it's just an escape from battle !

Bye, Alberto
You are quoting me above, not Steve.

1) Leach merely had to count the 14in shell splashes to know that PoW was not getting full output from her guns, and he could see for himself that the 5.25in guns ceased fire after 3 salvos. When did McMullen state that everything was fine with the guns...oh, many decades after the action! The GAR states otherwise.

2) Antonio just stated that his most recent calculations show Norfolk to be ~23500 yds from Bismarck at 0600 and this is not effective gun range for the RN 8in, especially without radar ranging. Suffolk's type 284 could obtain radar ranges at ~20,000 yds yet there is nothing from Suffolk to indicate that she believed herself to be that close. W-W-W needed to be able to effectively engage PE to have much chance of effecting the outcome of the battle. I have gamed this scenario many times, and placing PE in the Van effectively nullifies the RN CAs unless Bismarck is heavily engaged and damaged as she and PE can always double back and cripple one cruiser as Holland doesn't have enough speed to prevent this:
17. 0542 (B). Received Norfolk's 0541 reporting sighting enemy, followed by Prince of Wales' 0537 and Hood's 0543. The mean of these placed the enemy some 280°, 14 miles from Suffolk's plot position, and sights obtained shortly afterwards confirmed this. As, however, the Battle Cruiser Squadron was now in touch with the enemy, no amending position report was made at this point.

Enemy appeared to be approaching, and in case he had reversed course at 0538 (being "turned" by the Battle Cruiser Squadron), Suffolk circled to keep northward of enemy. It was soon realised, however, that the enemy was not approaching, the appearance being due to mirage, which also explains the similar (false) appearances at 0325.
3) Hood had no 38cm immune zone and Holland hoped to overwhelm Bismarck before Hood was fatally damaged and if Hood had engaged Bismarck instead of PE, the plan might have worked. OTOH, Lutjens could quite fairly be presumed to try to evade the trap by turning north and shooting his way past W-W's cruisers who therefore had to keep their distance - but we have gone over this repeatedly and you want to ignore naval tactics and the limitations of naval gunnery in 1941 in favour of accusations of cowardice. A course of 200d would not have opened the range fast enough, especially if Lutjens had turned onto a similar course. PoW did turn onto a course of ~0220 at ~0604 but then turned away after Y turret jammed...
Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: The Plot

Post by Steve Crandell »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Steve Crandell wrote: "1) Leach was aware of PoW's 14in gunnery problems and the lack of any output from the 5.25in guns. He could see that both Bismarck and PE had good output from all weapons systems, 2) and he knew that W-W's two cruisers were not in a position to effectively engage either KM ship. 3) He knew that he was outside his immune zone and vulnerable to crippling hits and that PE was also armed with torpedoes. RN tactical considerations dictated that he should open the range ASAP."
Hi Steve,

.....

Bye, Alberto
I didn't say that; the quote is from Dunmunro, but I don't disagree with it.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: The Plot

Post by alecsandros »

dunmunro wrote:
2) Antonio just stated that his most recent calculations show Norfolk to be ~23500 yds from Bismarck at 0600 and this is not effective gun range for the RN 8in, especially without radar ranging.
True, yet the Norfolk was well into gun range, even if not effective gun range. some 13 hours later, Suffolk, equipped with similar guns, fired on the Prinz Eugen at ~ 28000 yards:

"Blast from "B" turret shattered all the glass and blew away parts of the flimsy covering fitted to the bridge in 1940 in lieu of the previous windscreens, so that the wind and spray now drive straight in over the coaming.

1856 (B). Prinz Eugen opened fire, which was returned with three broadsides at G.R. 27,500 - 28,900 yards.
"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Plot

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Dunmunro and Steve Crandell: Steve, Duncan, sorry for mixing up your sentences, of course !

1) Someone on another thread was trying to tell me that Leach must have been shocked by the 15" hit in CP, not even able to order the disengagement, someone said he did not order the disengagement but just a new parallel course to BS and that he was unable to stop this turn that became a turn away .....
Now, Duncan, you want to tell me that Leach was spotting the fall of shots on behalf of McMullen, counting the shell splashes despite the hit on the CP ? :negative:
Apart from the fact that he had more urgent duties to carry on while conducting his ship around the remains of Hood even before the CP was hit, the idea that someone can determine the output of the battery counting the splashes is simply impossible from a gunnery viewpoint as the shell splash doesn't happen when a shell hits the enemy, so NO WAY for Leach to be more knowledgeable than McMullen in assessing the status of his guns.
More, in his final narrative Leach himself admits that 9 guns were in action (5+4 from Y turret after the turn to 280° course) and never mention any actual problem occurred later, simply because he could not be aware of them.

2) Suffolk turned to north while at some 10 miles from enemy because, due to a "mirage"...., Ellis believed that BS was turning north and coming towards him. He didn't double check, he didn't check with the radar, nor had the "stupid" Nelsonian idea to try to stop BS, had she tried to escape to the north. He just put his ship out of the subsequent action, after the battleships had already issued the enemy report..... Again we can debate whether this was a wise tactic or a lack of offensive spirit.

3) If I want to ignore naval tactics, for sure you are ignoring the demonstrated facts that point to the poor behaviour of these officers...... :lol:
Invoking the immunity zone as the bible of the behaviour of an officer at sea simply shows that you reduce the officer responsibility in battle to his skill in a kind of war game, that is never the case. Again you insist with the turn to 220° course: Leach NEVER stated that he wanted to continue the engagement. His decision was to disengage as per his own admission !

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)
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: The Plot

Post by Dave Saxton »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

YES, I have noticed that about Commander Cecil Alfred Luce sketches ( 2nd in Command of HMS Norfolk ).

Among the 4 main sketches produced, ... Wake-Walker, Phillips, Luce and Kelburn I think that the most precise, reliable and duplicated also from the First to the Second board was the one made by Capt Phillips.

The best view of Hood from Norfolk is the one by Capt Phillips on the second board ( Exhibit Nr 6 at page 49 ).

It is obvious that he made the best one, since he has been Commander ( 2nd in Command ) on board the HMS Hood so he knew what he was looking at ... :wink: ... better than anybody else.

On his witness report to both boards, it is very important the statement ( replicated also on the second board of inquiry by Capt Phillips ) that he was showing to RearAdm Wake-Walker the hit he thought Hood received close to the torpedo tubes.

Now if one looks at Hood hull and check were the torpedo tubes were located, ... one can have a clear idea how far Norfolk was from Hood, ... and a good idea about the bearing too given the visibility angle depicted by Capt Phillips.

Also all the details about this analysis are in that thread Marc.

Bye Antonio :D
It is possible that Phillips knowing the Hood very well filled in the details in his mind. This is a well known function of the human brain. The brain sees what it expects to see and knows what should be there even if it can't be seen by another brain, not already knowing those details, from the same perspective.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Plot

Post by wadinga »

Alberto has said:
Apart from the fact that he had more urgent duties to carry on while conducting his ship around the remains of Hood even before the CP was hit, the idea that someone can determine the output of the battery counting the splashes
PoW cannot be "conducted around" anything, because she has to remain on 280T for the CP hit to occur at all. Remember to stay "On Message" Alberto :negative: , or you will get thrown out of the triple A League :cool: . Although Rowell recalls throwing the wheel to starboard to avoid a wreck which is not directly ahead of him and is itself turning to port, and does not recall instantly countermanding this helm order, PoW does not turn at all above 280T in Antonio's scenario, and therefore is not "conducted around" Hood at all. Even if the Germans saw it happening, and Brooke remembers it happening.

Oh, by the way, IMHO it is probably easier to count the guns that are going off right in front of you, and even behind you, than shell splashes 20,000+ yds away. When did McMullen say the guns were alright? I thought he sent the boy down to find out what was happening on the Bridge, not to report that everything was "fine"? In fact it is the gun layer who knows how "fine" things are, because the Gun Ready lights come up as each gun is ready to fire, and he knows whether some are delayed and miss the salvo when he decides he has enough to fire and pulls the trigger. As Control Officer McMullen is glued to his glasses, fixated on the target, hoping the next salvo will include a hit, and himself depends on others to say how many fired on any particular salvo.

Antonio now says he has the "Bloodied Plot", he refuses to show it for fear of "theft", (of HM The Queen's property?) but it would be interesting for him to state unequivocally that it mirrors Rowell's subsequent renditions, and may even explain why Rowell's maps show a small turn to starboard, whilst the salvo plot does not. This "Bloodied Plot" should record every movement before power was lost in the Plotting Room when the CP hit occurred.

Interestingly the Plot claims to be traced from original tracks, produced overnight especially for the Second Enquiry, and yet the Triangle of Doom gives no indication of origin or that it is anything other than a stylized rendition of the guessed ranges people in the first enquiry supplied (declared, certified, signed for, notarized, swore had been measured with pinpoint accuracy etc etc etc)

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: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

Sean, ... you keep on loosing ground my friend, ... :think:

Come on, ... you have Geoffrey Brooke book, ... and you can listen to Ltnt Cdr C.W. McMullen on IWM online ... I suggest you to do it again.

Here Brooke for you ... so you can find easily his statement on page 60 ...

Of course " Gun's " is the nickname Brooke used for LtntCdr Colin William McMullen ... since he knew what was going on about the artillery on PoW ... :wink:
Guns_Boy_to_Leach.jpg
Guns_Boy_to_Leach.jpg (89.35 KiB) Viewed 1365 times
Enjoy ... 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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

a gift for everybody, so at least we will stay on the thread subject started by Marc.

Here " The Plot " with depicted on it 2 rectangular areas.

1) The BLUE one is the Plan 4 by PoW updated using the official original tracks with the correct bearings among all units at 05.37.

2) The RED one I made on it to allow you to compare what should have been done correctly ( the BLUE ) with what Pinchin did " incorrectly " making the RED " battle field enlargement ".

Interesting to notice that Pinchin left on the map several original correct references he did not use :shock: , ... like the PoW 05.37 spot I have associated to BISMARCK 1, ... which is correct of course.

Similarly he left of the map the correct enemy track approximate course ( BISMARCK ESTIMATED ) ... and the correct bearings between Norfolk and Suffolk at 05.36, 05.41 and 06.20 ... which do NOT find the proper connection point on the map on Suffolk track of course ... and have been left in there OPEN ... :shock:
Norfolk_Suffolk_PoW_BS_0537_comparison.jpg
(247.33 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Using PoW 1 & 2 as the base reference we have :

Norfolk 1, Suffolk 1, Bismarck 1 are correct points.

Norfolk 2, Suffolk 2, Bismarck 2 are incorrect points.

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:08 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 )
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

a gift for everybody, so at least we will stay on the thread subject started by Marc.
Antonio, I notice that you've changed the scale of the map; your 10nm is 10.58nm according to the original scale.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :
dunmunro wrote:
Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

a gift for everybody, so at least we will stay on the thread subject started by Marc.
Antonio, I notice that you've changed the scale of the map; your 10nm is 10.58nm according to the original scale.
No Duncan, I have NOT changed anything.

That map of course is not printed or available on the screen on your pc according to the scale mentioned in writing on the real paper sheet ... :wink: .

But you do have already on the map the most reliable reference.

In fact between the parallels 63 N and 64 N, both available on the map as reference, there are 60 sea miles, ... as everybody knows.

It has been enough for me to divide by 6 that distance to obtain the " real " scale for the map of 10 sea miles that I have placed up there.

Hope my explanation is clear enough, ... in case it is NOT just let me know.

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: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:@Dunmunro and Steve Crandell: Steve, Duncan, sorry for mixing up your sentences, of course !

1) Someone on another thread was trying to tell me that Leach must have been shocked by the 15" hit in CP, not even able to order the disengagement, someone said he did not order the disengagement but just a new parallel course to BS and that he was unable to stop this turn that became a turn away .....
Now, Duncan, you want to tell me that Leach was spotting the fall of shots on behalf of McMullen, counting the shell splashes despite the hit on the CP ? :negative:
Apart from the fact that he had more urgent duties to carry on while conducting his ship around the remains of Hood even before the CP was hit, the idea that someone can determine the output of the battery counting the splashes is simply impossible from a gunnery viewpoint as the shell splash doesn't happen when a shell hits the enemy, so NO WAY for Leach to be more knowledgeable than McMullen in assessing the status of his guns.
More, in his final narrative Leach himself admits that 9 guns were in action (5+4 from Y turret after the turn to 280° course) and never mention any actual problem occurred later, simply because he could not be aware of them.

2) Suffolk turned to north while at some 10 miles from enemy because, due to a "mirage"...., Ellis believed that BS was turning north and coming towards him. He didn't double check, he didn't check with the radar, nor had the "stupid" Nelsonian idea to try to stop BS, had she tried to escape to the north. He just put his ship out of the subsequent action, after the battleships had already issued the enemy report..... Again we can debate whether this was a wise tactic or a lack of offensive spirit.

3) If I want to ignore naval tactics, for sure you are ignoring the demonstrated facts that point to the poor behaviour of these officers...... :lol:
Invoking the immunity zone as the bible of the behaviour of an officer at sea simply shows that you reduce the officer responsibility in battle to his skill in a kind of war game, that is never the case. Again you insist with the turn to 220° course: Leach NEVER stated that he wanted to continue the engagement. His decision was to disengage as per his own admission !

Bye, Alberto
1) Of course Leach was observing the fall of shot! He would have been vitally interested in how his ship was shooting since the success and failure of the whole mission depended on it and has been suggested he could see for himself which of the forward guns were missing salvos. The CP hit happened around salvo 14 and it would have been very apparent from previous salvos that PoW was not getting a full output from her guns. Only one of the hits on Bismarck would have possibly failed to create a shell splash (the bow hit) and the splashes would have been quite visible from the CP. Of course Leach would also have access to the T.S. and could inquire as to the output of the guns, as no doubt, he was worried about this based upon 14in problems during her abbreviated work up:
3. Some explanation remains to be made as to my decision to break off the engagement after the sinking of H.M.S. "Hood" - a decision which clearly invites most critical examination. Prior to the disaster to the "Hood" I felt confident that together we could deal adequately with "Bismarck" and her consort. The sinking of "Hood" obviously changed the immediate situation, and there were three further considerations requiring to be weighed up, of which the first two had been in my mind before action was joined. Namely:

(a). The practical certainty that owing to mechanical "teething troubles" a full output from the main armament was not to be expected...
I can't find anything where Leach states that 9 guns were in action, unless you mean the radio damage report at 0820.

2) How does Suffolk manage to get so close when she was about 15nm from Bismarck at 0537? Again, your suggestion is that RN officers must either be suicidal or cowards. No one expected Suffolk to try and stop Bismarck from escaping; this is some kind of childish fantasy that you have. Suffolk's mission would have been to shadow Bismarck, if she turned north.

3) Leach just had a demonstration of what happens to capital ships when they fight outside their immune zone - naval war is not not a game and the consequences of ignoring the limitations of armour protection can be fatal for the entire ship.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :
dunmunro wrote:
Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

a gift for everybody, so at least we will stay on the thread subject started by Marc.
Antonio, I notice that you've changed the scale of the map; your 10nm is 10.58nm according to the original scale.
No Duncan, I have NOT changed anything.

That map of course is not printed or available on the screen on your pc according to the scale mentioned in writing on the real paper sheet ... :wink: .

But you do have already on the map the most reliable reference.

In fact between the parallels 63 N and 64 N, both available on the map as reference, there are 60 sea miles, ... as everybody knows.

It has been enough for me to divide by 6 that distance to obtain the " real " scale for the map of 10 sea miles that I have placed up there.

Hope my explanation is clear enough, ... in case it is NOT just let me know.

Bye Antonio :D
Antonio, then we can deduce that the map has been reproduced incorrectly. In the original there would have been exactly 12in (12 x the 5nm scale) between the parrallels.

Multiplying the image height by .9445 brings it back to the correct scale (remember to uncheck the preserve aspect ratio when resizing), assuming that the error is constant across the image.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

if you like to do it, ... to have it in perfect inches scale ... I have no problems with it.

I do not care to have it in inches scale, ... as I have it also on a bigger scale in centimeters / metric scale.

For this purpose it is enough to have it in sea miles.

What count is the content of it, ... since it demonstrate with no doubts what has been done, ... despite having the correct references.

With the use of this incorrect document, ... they changed the distances declared and moved Norfolk and Suffolk away from Hood and from the enemy.

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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Plot

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Dunmunro
1)
you wrote: "Of course Leach was observing the fall of shot! "
No Duncan he was not. Not when Hood exploded because per his own account to the board of Inquiry he was looking at Hood, not during the turn and counter-turn to avoid Hood remains and he was still in the left Captain sight of the CP at 6:00:50 when the hit passed through the bridge (else he would have been killed by the hit). So for him the guns in action were 9. The output up to salvo 14 was not bad at all except for the only gun out of action in A turret.

you wrote :"I can't find anything where Leach states that 9 guns were in action"
You posted it on the 5,25" thread., but you are right, it's the third message sent by Leach. In the narrative there is even NO mention to any actual problem with the guns and just the plain admission that his decision was taken due to his lack of confidence in the guns and in the gunnery dept.......
"Appendix to "HMS Prince of Wales" NO.001.B. dated 4th June, 1941.
TO : The Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet
..............At this time (just before 5:55) "Prince of Wales" had 5 (five) 14" guns in action. "Y" turret would not bear.
Fire in "Hood" spread rapidly to the mainmast. A turn of 2 blue at 0555 opened "A" Arcs at "Prince of Wales" ninth salvo ( 4 main guns more from this moment onward 5+4 = 9 )......... "

2)
you wrote: "How does Suffolk manage to get so close when she was about 15nm from Bismarck at 0537? "
This has been discussed in the "Articles of War" thread, where Antonio has demonstrated it (please refer to it). If you want, just measure it on the "plot" posted by Antonio above and you will see it is closer to 10 miles than to 15...... and it was possibly overestimated as Antonio in the other thread told us he has the original Suffolk plot showing a distance at 5:41 that is 10 miles from BS, before Ellis decided to turn to North wasting 13 minutes instead of joining the (imminent) action.......


3)
you wrote: "....naval war is not a game and the consequences of ignoring the limitations of armour protection can be fatal for the entire ship"
I agree, however to stop or damage BS he was forced to take some risks. Again IMHO he could have open range, not disengage. However he did it, giving up to his orders and to his duty in that very situation. :kaput:

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:38 pm, edited 1 time 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)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

if you like to do it, ... to have it in perfect inches scale ... I have no problems with it.

I do not care to have it in inches scale, ... as I have it also on a bigger scale in centimeters / metric scale.

For this purpose it is enough to have it in sea miles.

What count is the content of it, ... since it demonstrate with no doubts what has been done, ... despite having the correct references.

With the use of this incorrect document, ... they changed the distances declared and moved Norfolk and Suffolk away from Hood and from the enemy.

Bye Antonio :D
Antonio, there is also a longitude scale on the map 31w -> 32w which is equal to 27.257nm. The latitude and longitude scales must give the same scale (1in = 5nm) or the map cannot be used to measure distance or plot bearings.
Post Reply