The Plot

[dunmunro]

Dunmunro wrote: "Refraction is a fact and not subject to nationality, "

Hi Duncan,
exactly, but that day affected ONLY the British cruiser(s).....

you wrote: "Ellis was not definite about what he could see. But if Hood was visible at over 20nm then so would Norfolk be visible and we know that this cannot be since then Suffolk and Norfolk would be visible to each other."

Therefore, if according to everybody, Hood was visible at 20 sm and Norfolk was not at 14 sm, it simply means visibility was not that good in all directions, a very common effect at sea, much more than the "mirage" effect...... For sure this corroborates the fact that Hood was not visible at 33 sm as per wrong Pinchin's Plot.....

you wrote: "1) the official report is honest but no doubt contains observation errors. It is a factual and accurate account of Suffolk's course and speed.
2) His autobiography is honest but Ellis's memory failed him and he probably remembered another incident and confused it with the events of 0553 onward on May 24. There's simply no corroborating evidence that Suffolk attempted to communicate on the FC wave.

I see you don't want / you are unable to answer here. Both being honest is simply IMPOSSIBLE as i have demonstrated to you. One of them is a fake as they intentionally say totally different things. No confusion, sorry.
Which one is a fake, please ?

Regarding evidences missing, we miss many of them (e.g. where are the 13 Tactical Plots of Suffolk that should have been attached to official reports ? )

you wrote: "To spot the fall of shot, the observer would need to be in the DCT observing the battle through stabilized sights and be connected by phone to the transmitting station, and from there to the FC wave radio transmitter/receiver and he would have to have exact timing to differentiate Hood and PoW's FoS. An observer with handheld binoculars standing outside the DCT would be useless for spotting the FoS and his testimony means nothing except that he wanted to observe the battle."

No Duncan, if you are right, the commission would never have accepted his declaration that he was there with the idea to spot the fall of shots..... He declared under oath what was his duty at the moment when the ship was at action stations, in sight of the enemy.

Bye, Alberto

Please tell us how German optics can not be effected by atmospheric refraction, and please state where this stated in the German accounts.

Hood was probably not visible but because it was making lots of smoke and that smoke was illuminated by gun flashes, she seemed visible.

Alberto, we have dozens of witnesses at the Hood inquiry giving often conflicting testimony, and that is only a short time after the actual event. I suspect that if we could interview them all again, after 35 years even after showing them their written testimony, that they would all have different accounts from what they stated, simply because in the intervening years their memories would become increasingly tainted by other accounts of the action while their imaginations would embellish the details.

Stating that he wanted to observe the fall of shot, doesn't mean that he intended communicate that to Hood, and the commission accepted that. It simply meant that he wanted to satisfy his professional curiosity about the effectiveness of the battleship's gunnery.

325. Will you please tell us what you saw of the sinking of the "HOOD?"

I was up there with the idea of spotting the fall of shot, and I was watching the "PRINCE OF WALES" and "HOOD" through my glasses, and I think "HOOD" fired two or three salvos, one of which got a hit on the "BISMARCK" and then I saw what appeared to be a big explosion, which so far as I could see was roughly around "X" turret. It was around "X" or "Y" turret.

He testified that he was watching Prince of Wales and Hood, so unless he was intending to help the Baron spot Bismark's FoS I don't know how he could possibly have assisted Hood, especially since he didn't realize that Hood was firing at PE!!!

Again, spotting long range gunnery requires complete concentration on the target and it requires that the spotter be connected into the FC system and be connected to the firing ship via the FC wave radio link.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dunmunro wrote: "Please tell us how German optics can not be effected by atmospheric refraction, and please state where this stated in the German accounts."

Hi Duncan,
British cruisers stated they were affected by the refraction effect. Germans did not tell any "story" about refraction or "mirage". You have to show me where they did, not the other way round.....

you wrote: "we have dozens of witnesses at the Hood inquiry giving often conflicting testimony, "

Exactly, I agree. It was not me starting to list more or less reliable witnesses from Suffolk.
So let's stay to evidences and to Ellis book that is VERY CLEAR about what happened, the same book you don't want to accuse of being a fake....... If it is not, then his "official report" is.

you wrote: "He testified that he was watching Prince of Wales and Hood,... .....spotting long range gunnery requires complete concentration on the target and it requires that the spotter be connected into the FC system and be connected to the firing ship via the FC wave radio link."

Again, Ellis book explains very clearly that they "had set watch on the appropriate radio set and frequency and called the Hood repeatedly but without response". So Shaw was "free" to look at Hood.
Of course from 15 sm he could not see much, can you guess what he could have seen from 30 sm as per Pinchin's wrong "Plot" ? Simply nothing.......


Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dunmunro wrote: "From 0520 to 0542, "the Plot" shows an average speed of ~26 knots.

Hi Duncan,
therefore, as Antonio has demonstrated (see below, please note that you have not yet answered to his question) that Suffolk should have kept an average speed of 22knots from 4:47 till 5:41 just to allow her to respect the "official reports", are you now suggesting that Suffolk was sailing at the "astonishing" speed of 19.5 knots from 4:47 till 5:20 to be able to get to the point where Pinchin "Plotted" her at 5:42 ?

Come on, let's try to build a credible scenario, not just to deny what Antonio has already shown to everybody: that the "Plot" drawn by Pinchin is simply an incorrect document.

Again, as I already asked, please answer Antonio questions as per his request below (his demonstration and question to you are crystal clear), drawing your own map, or please accept his reconstruction as the best possible at this time (at least from 4:47 till 5:41).

Antonio Bonomi wrote: "You have to consider the interval 04.47 until 05.41 = 54 minutes.
We have in this interval 13 minutes that belongs to Suffolk war diary average speed between 04.00 and 05.00 and other 41 minutes that belongs in the average speed between 05.00 and 06.00 on Suffolk war diary : 13+41 = 54 minutes.

The 22 knots is the average speed enabling Suffolk to start from 15 sea miles at 04.47 with enemy on bearing 184°, ... and after 54 minutes, ... having sailed just around only 20 sea miles ( 22 divided by 60 minutes and multiplied by 54 minutes = around 20 sea miles ) ... ... be where Ltnt Cdr S.H. Pinchin traced her on " The Plot " , ... so at 17 sea miles from the enemy position at 05.41.

You can try and choose between : ( 22/60 ) x 54 = 19,8 sea miles or ( 22,5/60 ) x 54 = 20,25 sea miles

On the map I attach here under, since you apparently do not understand what I mean, you have the points A,B, C and D on the BLUE line I traced, that are the 20 sea miles sailed at average 22 knots, from 04.47 until 05.41, that you sustain Suffolk sailed on the interval in order to be able to say that the " The Plot " is a correct map.

Plot_evaluation_versus_reality_03.jpg (57.67 KiB) Viewed 655 times

You only have 2 possibilities now :

1) Either you say that this is what you think really happened, like apparently your are stating, keep on writing " The Plot " by Pinchin being a correct map.

2) Or you admit that " The Plot " is an incorrect map as far as Suffolk track relatively to the distance between Suffolk and the enemy at 05.41, being IMPOSSIBLE for the Suffolk to have sailed ONLY the 20 sea miles that using PInchin reference she would have sailed from 04.47 until 05.41, so during those 54 minutes we are evaluating now.

It is a very easy to realize and direct question.

Now I like your and Duncan answer about this question, please."

Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

All,

Since few apparently read or answer my observations, I only contribute from time to time. (I mentioned the "turning" Suffolk witness some posts ago)

Alberto has enthusiastically and forcefully stated:

Now it's just Suffolk track that is under discussion and here NOBODY has been able to answer Antonio's question regarding the inconsistent speed of Suffolk between 4:47 and 5:41 as per the wrong Pinchin's "plot" ....

Pinchin's plot of Suffolk only commences at 05:20. Therefore Pinchin doesn't portray distance covered between 04:47 and 05:41 at all.

Antonio has cobbled together this particular "proof" by grafting bits of the Suffolk strategical plot to Pinchin's plot. Suffolk's log information may contradict this about speed, but then all contradicting information is denounced as a deliberate lie. Apparently.

Other contributors might wish to attempt

valid alternative map has been presented yet.

if Antonio didn't consistently refuse to show anything but fragments of both cruiser's strategical maps and other information eg logbooks necessary to make such a map. Still it's his research, and he can show what he chooses, but crucially the documents are not his. They belong to HM Government. The inability of us, his critics, to create an alternate, at this time, does not make his fabrication correct. Or even better than Pinchin.

No-one can tell from the thumbnail of the Suffolk map shown whether the navigational corrections have been retrospectively applied or not to to the 04:47 position. Well actually Antonio knows, but he's not telling. He knows what position Suffolk reported for that time and he knows what the strategical map shows. He also knows what speeds the strategical map indicates within its own display and whether they are consistent with the Ship's log.

He has never accepted the the most fundamental error in his logic, starting at the very core of this debate. Once you go beyond rangefinder ranges, or don't use them, long visual distances at sea are guesstimated. With Huge Unknown errors.

The 22 knots is the average speed enabling Suffolk to start from 15 sea miles at 04.47 with enemy on bearing 184°, ... and after 54 minutes, ... having sailed just around only 20 sea miles ( 22 divided by 60 minutes and multiplied by 54 minutes = around 20 sea miles ) ... ... be where Ltnt Cdr S.H. Pinchin traced her on " The Plot " , ... so at 17 sea miles from the enemy position at 05.41.

What device on Suffolk measures 15 sea miles with any accuracy? Who knows whether it was actually nearer 20? Does it matter? All Ellis had to do was keep the enemy "in sight" in phenomenal visibility, and at arm's length. Since there was no indication until 05:41 that a battle was in prospect, there was no fight to be positioned to join in with.

Equally what device on Norfolk was used to measure Hood's distance with any accuracy? Nobody bothered in this case because nobody was interested. It was irrelevant. The figure given at the First Enquiry was irrelevant. It was irrelevant at either enquiry because it was what the witnesses saw that mattered to a technical enquiry.

Pinchin's Plot contains many errors because it was thrown together overnight to give a rough idea of where witnesses were. A rough idea. Nobody bothered to correct it later because there was a War on and there were more important things to do. I expect Suffolk's tactical plots kicked about in various ships for ages, whilst somebody got on with fighting the Nazi Peril and thought "When I get a quiet minute I'll give 'em a look."

One single interesting fact has emerged from this debate, confirming both Bill Jurens and interestingly, Rob Winklareth's attempts to plot the last minutes of Hood's life. Enemy in sight 17 miles was wrong, wrong, wrong, because no device in PoW measured 17 miles. It was a pure guess based on the rough track for Bismarck plotted in PoW from the Suffolk reports with two unknown navigational errors (PoW + Suffolk) contributing. When they sighted Bismarck, they invented a "range" based on this working plot, to report. Our most esteemed contributor, like a practical engineer, worked backwards from the sinking and concluded this start point range was simply wrong. Winklareth, like some other contributors, went off at a wild creative tangent, and started "inventing things" like radical turns by the germans that never happened, discounted any contradicting evidence, manufactured a reversed photo theory to fit them, and managed to get his book published by the Naval Institute Press in 1998. He has some royalties, but I imagine what passed for fame at the time, has turned to notoriety. If he had read Bill's seminal 1987 article in Warship International, his ludicrous theory would never have seen the light of day.

Contradicting Ellis' late life memory, neither the PoW nor Norfolk gunnery documents make any mention of Suffolk transmitting on the gunnery "net" offering her flank marking services. We may reasonably conclude it never happened. Ellis simply mis-remembered, confusing the things exercises and theory said you would do with what was actually practical. Just like he misremembered the false range from the radar, for the real distance. Writing his unpublished autobiography, I don't suppose for an instant he thought somebody would, decades later, place one wobbly leg of a gigantic Conspiracy Theory on such minor inconsistencies.

Optical distortion conditions are mentioned in the narratives and in the Hood enquiry witness accounts and three locations in the German accounts. Despite the British using their own inferior optics Holland's force sighted the enemy at 05:37 whereas the superb Zeiss competition did not allow the reverse until 05:45 when the distance was much reduced. In the second instance Busch in Fire Control with all its equipment can't identify a 10,000 ton cruiser at only 9 miles and calls it a mast. Lastly, the Baron doesn't notice this vessel is at 9 miles less 1600 hectometres from him and reports it as no closer than 12-15 miles. Clearly German optics were finding conditions just as challenging.

All the best

wadinga

[dunmunro]

Why Sean, I hang on your every post...

you did mention the turning here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495&p=66460&hilit=turn#p66460

The plot shows a speed of ~22 knots from 0520-0532, but as Sean states it's hard to do an analysis with such incomplete information.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dunmunro wrote: "The plot shows a speed of ~22 knots from 0520-0532"

Dunmunro wrote: "From 0520 to 0542, "the Plot" shows an average speed of ~26 knots."

Hi Duncan,
sorry but mathematics is not an opinion ..... If you say the above, it just means Suffolk made 31knots between 05:32 and 05:42......

Please tell us:
1) that you think these are the speeds kept by Suffolk in the interval between 05:20 and 05:42
2) or which of your above 2 statement is wrong.

If you want to produce your own battle-map, this counts must be precise as Antonio's ones.....

Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Dunmunro wrote: "The plot shows a speed of ~22 knots from 0520-0532"

Dunmunro wrote: "From 0520 to 0542, "the Plot" shows an average speed of ~26 knots."

Hi Duncan,
sorry but mathematics is not an opinion ..... If you say the above, it just means Suffolk made 31knots between 05:32 and 05:42......

Please tell us:
1) that you think these are the speeds kept by Suffolk in the interval between 05:20 and 05:42
2) or which of your above 2 statement is wrong.

If you want to produce your own battle-map, this counts must be precise as Antonio's ones.....

Bye, Alberto

I went back and measured the plot carefully (I rescaled it 2x) and I got this info:
5nm = 156px (from the scale on the map).

0520-0532 = 145px or 4.65nm = 23.28 knots (4.65 x 5)

0532-0542 = 141px or 4.51nm = 27.08 knots (4.51 x 6)

0520-0541 = 286px or 9.17nm = 25.00kn ( 9.17nm x 2.7272)

(edited numbers with best possible measurements)

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "Since few apparently read or answer my observations, I only contribute from time to time."

Hi Sean,
perhaps someone is not reading your posts (I try to do and to answer when I can) but YOU have not yet answered Antonio direct question about how much distance Suffolk has traveled between 04:47 and 05:41.........You just say you disagree with his approach for not very clear reasons, please counter point by point his reasoning, if you are able....... good luck !

you wrote: "Pinchin's plot of Suffolk only commences at 05:20"

You are right and I already corrected my statement saying "as Antonio has demonstrated (see below, please note that you have not yet answered to his question) that Suffolk should have kept an average speed of 22knots from 4:47 till 5:41 just to allow her to respect the "official reports". So my mistake, where is your answer ?

"you wrote: "Pinchin's Plot contains many errors"

Finally we are in agreement !! Antonio reconstruction is much better even if it is based on assumptions (e.g. the starting point of Suffolk being at 4:47 at 15 sm from enemy as per her intercepted message). At least it's consistent, while Pinchin Plot is even not traced with the information available to him.

As I already asked, please post your own battle-map, so we can have fun challenging it, putting Suffolk at your preferred distance from Hood when she exploded, Norfolk out of sight and gun range, etc.

If you don't have any alternative, then Antonio reconstruction is by far the best available, after finally you admitted Pinchin Plot is wrong.

Bye, Alberto



P.S.

Dunmunro wrote: "I went back and measured the plot carefully (I rescaled it 2x) and I got this info:
5nm = 154px (from the scale on the map).
0520-0532 = 146px or 4.77nm = 23.86 knots (4.77 x 5)
0532-0542 = 139px or 4.51nm = 27.08 knots (4.51 x 6)
0520-0541 = 286px or 9.35nm = 25.5kn ( 9.35nm x 2.7272)

Hi Duncan,
so you admit that BOTH your previous calculations (26 knots from 05:20 to 05:42 and 22 knots from 05:32 to 05:42) were wrong.

Precision is something needed if you want to try to build your own reconstruction because all your statements will be challenged as you are doing with Antonio's reconstruction.

Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

you wrote :

Pinchin's Plot contains many errors because it was thrown together overnight to give a rough idea of where witnesses were. A rough idea.

Sean, do I have to take it being your admission, ... as it seems to me, ... that finally you accept to agree that " The Plot " is an incorrect/wrong document like me, Alberto and Marc, ... and some other members did realize since months ?

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :

I hang on your every post...

Duncan, referencing my statement above to Sean, ... do I have to take it on the same way ?
So you finally admit too that " The Plot " is an incorrect/wrong document ?

A short reply from both will be enough for me and we can close Marc ( Herr Nilsson ) thread about " The Plot ".

If anybody at this point does thinks that " The Plot " is a valid map please provide evidence supporting your case and demonstrating that what has been written about it on this thread until now is incorrect.

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Duncan, referencing my statement above to Sean, ... do I have to take it on the same way ?
So you finally admit too that " The Plot " is an incorrect/wrong document ?

A short reply from both will be enough for me and we can close Marc ( Herr Nilsson ) thread about " The Plot ".

If anybody at this point does thinks that " The Plot " is a valid map please provide evidence supporting your case and demonstrating that what has been written about it on this thread until now is incorrect.

Bye Antonio

Every document on both sides was filled with errors. Every range/bearing was just an estimate with considerable error bars.

Of course the plot is a 'valid' map, but it was made in the "fog of war" and must contain errors. It was correct to the best of the abilities of the navigators that produced it who, in turn, based their estimates upon rather poor input data.

[dunmunro]

P.S.

Dunmunro wrote: "I went back and measured the plot carefully (I rescaled it 2x) and I got this info:
5nm = 154px (from the scale on the map).
0520-0532 = 146px or 4.77nm = 23.86 knots (4.77 x 5)
0532-0542 = 139px or 4.51nm = 27.08 knots (4.51 x 6)
0520-0541 = 286px or 9.35nm = 25.5kn ( 9.35nm x 2.7272)

Hi Duncan,
so you admit that BOTH your previous statements (26 knots from 05:20 to 05:42 and 22 knots from 05:32 to 05:42) were wrong.

Just for the record:

I went back and measured the plot carefully (I rescaled it 2x) and I got this info:
5nm = 156px (from the scale on the map).

0520-0532 = 145px or 4.65nm = 23.28 knots (4.65 x 5)

0532-0542 = 141px or 4.51nm = 27.08 knots (4.51 x 6)

0520-0541 = 286px or 9.17nm = 25.00kn ( 9.17nm x 2.7272)

(edited numbers with best possible measurements)

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Duncan,
thanks ! You see now how challenging is to try to measure and reconstruct even a short period of time for one single ship.......

However I think your calculation is still wrong :

the total distance is more close to 8,8 sm in the anyway incorrect "Plot" drawn by Pinchin.......

IMAGE$40124CFC758B0E63.jpg (38.3 KiB) Viewed 584 times

Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Hi Duncan,
thanks ! You see now how challenging is to try to measure and reconstruct even a short period of time for one single ship.......

However I think your calculation is still wrong :

the total distance is more close to 8,8 sm in the wrong "Plot" drawn by Pinchin.......

IMAGE$40124CFC758B0E63.jpg

Bye, Alberto

You need to include the scale (Pinchin's 5nm scale) so that we can see how you derived your numbers.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Duncan,
the distance between the 2 parallels drawn by Pinchin in the Plot (63°N and 64°N) is 60 miles. The scale included in my above map is taken by using them as reference.

Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Hi Duncan,
the distance between the 2 parallels in the Plot (63°N and 64°N) is 60 miles. The scale included in my map is taken by using them as reference.

Bye, Alberto

Sorry, but you need to use Pinchin's scale. You can't arbitrarily decide to use a different scale than the one provided.