The Plot

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio, where is the 05:50 bearing in your map?

Anyway, I've played around a bit. :oops:
Image
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
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 »

Helo everybody,

@ Paul Cadogan,

I think you are measuring everything correctly on the " revisited and adjusted plot " where I have placed a scale map in sea miles just to enable you and everybody else to make measurements.

Please remember that, as obvious, on the subject map that is NOT my final map but just " The Plot " where I have repositioned correctly the Norfolk and Suffolk tracks, added the correct Rowell Hood and PoW tracks referencing a correct German warship track and course, ... we are mainly evaluating the BEARINGS of Suffolk and Norfolk, ... using the RN heavy cruiser tracks that Pinchin traced to realize his own scenario.

@ Herr Nillson,

nice job, I like it very much :clap: .

Just as I was telling Paul Cadogan above, ... that map is just " The Plot " adjusted for the Norfolk and Suff0lk main reference bearings evaluation.

In fact, you can read on the map that I have written on every track that " needs revision ", in order to be adjusted for course and speed, since in some cases they do not even respect in scale the needed parameters.

On your above map I like very much your analysis extension on Suffolk track extended to 05.20 on the upper part, since that is the key to include the Suffolk into the overall larger certified scenario of the radio messages transmitted/intercepted and the reference toward the German track distance of 15 sea miles at 04.47.

Now what needs to be done, once the main area framework is determined by the correct bearings, is to work on the warship single track details, verification and adjustments.

This is the reason why you got the 05.50 bearing between Norfolk and Hood not correctly matching, ... because Norfolk track traced by Pinchin, ... that I have NOT touched yet in order not to change too much and confuse everybody the above reasoning, ... has not been changed yet as it should be, ... and here we have to include the Norfolk gunnery report available distances.
The same goes from the Norfolk course between 05.55 and 06.00, ... and more for Norfolk after too.

For Suffolk we need to realize when the " turn back circle " really occurred, ... because the distance traveled between 05.00 and 06.00 ( 27,5 sea miles ) demonstrate it occurred, .... but we need to realize when ... based on the available data and reasoning.

Still a lot of work to be done, ... but the frame is there now ... :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 )
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Post by Herr Nilsson »

My 05:50 bearing is matching. All British bearings are matching. PG's bearing to Suffolk is matching as well. Even PoW is about 1.5 seamiles from Norfolk at 06:34. Everything is matching without modifying any bearing or track to make it fit.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
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,

@ Herr Nilsson,

the bearing reasoning you are following is correct, we are in synch about it.

At first look it seems to me that you are :

1) Keeping the Hood and PoW track by Rowell too far away from the Bismarck position at 06.00 and above.
2) Having the Suffolk track too far away north, since at 05.41 the Suffolk was much closer to the Germans.

Here in graphic what I mean for you to evaluate :
Bearings_comparison_02.jpg
Bearings_comparison_02.jpg (90.62 KiB) Viewed 4149 times


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,

@ Herr Nilsson,

this is the correct Bismarck to PoW/Hood distance and bearing reference at 06.00 :
234509encIVb.gif
234509encIVb.gif (14.93 KiB) Viewed 4142 times
You can double verify the bearings with the PoW gunnery report.

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm

I have simply placed it on top of the PoW track we are using to correctly determine the exact Bismarck position at 06.00.

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: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Post by Herr Nilsson »

May I cite you?
Antonio Bonomi wrote: @ Dunmunro,

Duncan, it was you with Sean ( Wadinga ) that convinced me months ago that the bearings were more reliable and accurate than the distances, ... after a comparison I decided to accept your suggestions and went mainly with the bearings, ... taking in much less account at first the declared distances.

According to Exibit B Bismarck's course isn't 220°. So how reliable is Bismarck's track?
And what about Enclosure (IV) (a)? I read "appeared" and "suggested".

Image
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
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,

@ Herr Nilsson,

of course you can cite me, ... no problems, ... :wink:

I was writing the bearings, ... not the course track nor all the distances.

Bismarck and Prinz Eugen at 06.00 were still sailing the 220° straight course that the Prinz Eugen battle map shows.

On the Rowell map I attached for you above, ... I take the bearing in fact at 06.00, ... and just that distance at 06.00 since it is in line also with PoW gunnery report and Jasper report, ... and than I apply on top of it the known German warship tracks all the way backwards on course 220°, ... until 05.38, ... matching the bearings backwards.

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: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: I was writing the bearings, ... not the course track nor all the distances.
Remember we're talking about Pinchin's plot in this thread. You've always blamed Pinchin for using distances instead of bearings. With spending a lot of time Pinchin could have made a map ignoring distances without modifying tracks and bearings.
Antonio Bonomi wrote: Bismarck and Prinz Eugen at 06.00 were still sailing the 220° straight course that the Prinz Eugen battle map shows.

On the Rowell map I attached for you above, ... I take the bearing in fact at 06.00, ... and just that distance at 06.00 since it is in line also with PoW gunnery report and Jasper report, ... and than I apply on top of it the known German warship tracks all the way backwards on course 220°, ... until 05.38, ... matching the bearings backwards.
So what about salvo 6, if you go backwards on course 220°? Is this salvo still straddling Bismarck?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
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,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I confirm it.

After having worked for some years on this map, ... I still believe that Pinchin did enlarge the battlefield taking care of the distances he wanted to obtain, ... the famous " around 15 sea miles " for both Norfolk and Suffolk, ... disregarding some key bearings and enlarging the ones he could keep valid of course, ... mainly the horizontal for Norfolk and the vertical for the Suffolk.

In fact it is only when you properly position in reality the Hood/Pow and the German warship tracks, ... and you start referring to those data, ... that the whole incorrect situation shows up clearly.

It is not a combination that Pinchin used an invented Hood track and a very poorly precise German track to make his map.

NO, Pinchin was not going to be able to make what he did with a valid Hood/Pow track and respecting the cross battlefield bearings, and in fact he di d not do it.

You should have realized by now that it is only by enlarging the battlefield as you did not respecting the Hood/Pow versus Bismarck key distance at 06.00 and back, ... and enlarging Suffolk track a lot to north ... than you can match the majority of the bearings ... but still not all of them.

When you need to match ALL of them with the correct reference at 06.00, ... so the most precise reference we have, ... than you are forced to close the battlefield, ... and this was the opposite of what Pinchin wanted to obtain with his map.

As far as the German warship tracks, I use the Prinz Eugen battle map track as base reference for 220°, surely not the PoW gunnery or Plan 4 showed track showing Bismarck on course 212°.

All the 3 PoW hits were obtained with Bismarck on course 220° sailing in line behind the Prinz Eugen.

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: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Pinchin didn't conceal anything. Actually you're the one who is taking care of the distances you want to obtain. You wrote:
When you need to match ALL of them with the correct reference at 06.00, ... so the most precise reference we have, ...
and
All the 3 PoW hits were obtained with Bismarck on course 220° sailing in line behind the Prinz Eugen.
Why is the range of salvo 13 more precise than the range of salvo 6?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Plot

Post by Cag »

Dear All,
I think that both Antonio and Herr Nilsson have valid points, BC must have been on a course of 220 degrees at the opening of the battle and Antonio confirms he can show how the three hits were achievable on that course, would it be possible that after being hit by PoW, BC might have veered off that course slightly so as to not give the British a sitting target so to speak? (Hence the moving line in PoW gunnery map) Probably this also goes for PG to a lesser extent as well, and although they would have been modest corrections so that the general course is adhered to, the more important value of inhibiting the British gunners would be uppermost in mind? Both Herr Nilsson (Hello its a pleasure to post alongside you!) and Antonio are much more experienced in this kind of thing and so would ask if it would be a valid option for BC to have done this?
Cag.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Cag, I'm not saying that Bismarck wasn't sailing on a straight course, but that one can't arbitrarily choose one particular salvo, if there are other salvos which also straddled and don't match. So either the course is wrong or the distances of the salvo plot are not reliable. PoW had a lot of problems to find the target at all and lost it immediately every time. They even increased the zig zag pattern from 100 to 200 yards without the results they hoped for.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
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,

@ Cag,

it is surely possible that in order to avoid being hit the Bismarck was making course alterations toward PoW, ... but not that she sailed for a long period of time on course 212° ... while Prinz Eugen was on course 220°ahead of her.

Since we miss those details I am assuming for Bismarck a straight course 220° behind Prinz Eugen until 06.03, ... which in my personal opinion is by far the most precise track reproduction we have so far.

@ Herr Nilsson,

you wrote :
Pinchin didn't conceal anything. Actually you're the one who is taking care of the distances you want to obtain.
Looking at the ONLY utilization done of " The Plot ", ... I will not even respond to this statement.

I do not know which one between the 6th and the 13th PoW salvo was the most precisely reproduced on the PoW gunnery map.

What I know is that :

1) Rowell map tells us that between PoW and Bismarck at 06.00 there were around 16.300 yards on bearing 330° (overstated).
2) Suffolk was at around 9 to 10 sea miles distance from the German warships at 05.41.
3) Norfolk was having Suffolk on bearing 319° and the enemy on bearing 276°at 05.41 at around 13 sea miles.
4) The German formation was sailing on course 220° from 05.38 until 06.03, PG at 27 knots, Bismarck probably faster.

I simply do not care if Suffolk will end up being at 10, 11 or 12 sea miles from Bismarck at 05.41, and not at my evaluated 9 to 10.
What I do know is that for sure Suffolk was NOT at the more than 16 sea miles Pinchin positioned her, because it is NOT possible.

Similarly, I do not care if Norfolk will end up being at 12 or 13 sea miles at 06.00 from Hood, and not at my evaluated 11.
What I do know is that for sure Norfolk was NOT at the more than 15 sea miles Pinchin positioned her, because it is NOT possible.

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 )
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Plot

Post by northcape »

Antonio, you write:

"Since we miss those details I am assuming for Bismarck a straight course 220° behind Prinz Eugen until 06.03, ... which in my personal opinion is by far the most precise track reproduction we have so far."

Please read this again and tell me how this is not the most contradictionary statement in this thread ever.

"I miss the information, so I ASSUME something. Then I declare this ASSUMPTION as the by far most precise track reproduction."

This is like saying "I don't know the temperature of today, so I assume it is 25°C because statistically this is the average. Now I say my assumption is the most accurate estimate of the temperature today so far."

No, it is not. It is an assumption for an event where observations are missing, thus it can't be less or more accurate than any other assumption.

You may argue that the straight line course is the most likely track in your opinion, but his has nothing to do with accuracy. What is the difference? If you state "by far the most precise track reproduction", than you indicate that you are very close to reality and that completely other scenarios are not possible . However this statement is wrong since observations are missing.
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 »

Herr Nilsson wrote: "Why is the range of salvo 13 more precise than the range of salvo 6?" and "...one can't arbitrarily choose one particular salvo, if there are other salvos which also straddled and don't match."
Hi Marc,
with all probability, I'm missing something in your reasoning.

Assuming salvo 6 distance is correct (instead of salvo 13) in PoW gunnery report (21150 yards), with BS sailing straight on course 220° my very approximate calculations end up with an "error" in salvo 13 distance (as declared in PoW gunnery report = 16450 yards) of just.....around 300 yards (less than 2% error).

Can you please tell me if I'm doing any major error in my evaluation or can you please explain in detail what is the problem you see in assuming that the distances of the PoW gunnery report are all correct (with due tolerance, of course, possibly just due to the normal salvo spread, etc.), assuming BS on course 220°all the time ?

I think that we all should keep in mind that here we are facing "innocent errors" in distance of 135% (like Suffolk distance from BS at 5:53, from 9 sm as per Ellis autobiography to 21 sm as per Pinchin "Plot").

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