Dear All,
Thanks Wadinga I couldn't remember where I'd seen the info, but will always be interested in anything Mr Raven et al produces! The D/F aerial on the after mast of PoW is what you state in your post, as I said the one fitted to PoW was just a D/F not HF/DF, I think the HF/DF aerial was a cruciform box type aerial on the Admirals bridge face of the KG V class and PoW was lost before one could be fitted. The one fitted to PoW is highlighted in Alberto's post and was directional and could only give a azimuth and an approximated one at that as it was based on signal strength. Again I must state that, in my humble opinion, the accuracy of all ranging, bearing, and directional equipment should be taken with a +/- measurement as the larger accepted errors were symptomatic of the time due to the accepted errors in the available equipment (Today we can accept much tighter tolerances due to smaller accepted errors).
The movements of PoW according to her log (ADM 53/114888) show that at 0623 her course is 340 degrees at 0629 her course is 300 degrees, this is altered to 263 degrees at 0631 and at 0634 she alters course to 250 degrees and Norfolk is ahead by approx 1.5 miles, the enemy is ahead approx 200 degrees. At 0649 she alters course to 220 degrees and then finally alters course to 140 degrees at 0653 and 160 degrees at 0700 again with errors in time, distance, bearing etc to be accounted for.
Hope this helps,
Cag.
The Plot
Moderator: Bill Jurens
-
Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Re: The Plot
Hello everybody,
@ Cag,
I am open to any evaluation about Radio Direction Finding equipment, ... the HF, or the MF ... etc etc ... and their tolerances.
Still remain the fact that once you properly position " The Plot " tracks using what is available as far as bearings, ... with due tolerances, ... the whole scenario goes together nicely.
So for everybody convenience I have added also the 05.35 bearing of 350° between the PoW and the Suffolk, ... in GREEN on the map ... so you can see how now the 8 bearings we have available, ... ALL fit on the map, ... once you just adjust the cross bearings using the 06.20 visual one between Norfolk and Suffolk at 06.20 for example.
Once the battlefield starts having the correct dimensions ... ALL the bearings are correct ... and one can start having the distances measured quite nicely among the various units and versus the enemy.
We can assume the tolerances you like, ... but the scenario was this one.
Bye Antonio
@ Cag,
I am open to any evaluation about Radio Direction Finding equipment, ... the HF, or the MF ... etc etc ... and their tolerances.
Still remain the fact that once you properly position " The Plot " tracks using what is available as far as bearings, ... with due tolerances, ... the whole scenario goes together nicely.
So for everybody convenience I have added also the 05.35 bearing of 350° between the PoW and the Suffolk, ... in GREEN on the map ... so you can see how now the 8 bearings we have available, ... ALL fit on the map, ... once you just adjust the cross bearings using the 06.20 visual one between Norfolk and Suffolk at 06.20 for example.
- Plot_redone_adjusted_bearings_087.jpg (79.26 KiB) Viewed 1083 times
We can assume the tolerances you like, ... but the scenario was this one.
Bye Antonio
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 )
-
A Raven
Re: The Plot
On the matter of Dfing, and radar.
From Norfolk's records.
Ist April 1941.
"Carried out RD/F exercise with Derbyshire."
There are previously dated items of a similar nature that mention the use of RD/F. This refers to Dfing on radio transmissions.
"Fitted at Rosyth with 286m. Undocked on 10th May 1941."
This was the first time that the Norfolk was fitted with ANY form of radar. People should make note that it states that radar WAS fitted in this period. About ONE week in dock.
20th May 1941.
"numerous ice floes encountered, visibility dropped to five cables in fog. Speed reduced to 9 knots. RDF was operated whilst on the southern leg of the patrol to detect northbound ships."
NOTE the use of the term RDF to denote the use of radar, as distinct from the term RD/F.
As can be noted, the use of RD/F does NOT refer to radar. Nor can it, because the ship had not been fitted with any form of radar until early May. Therefore the use of the term RD/F during the Bismarck episode MUST refer to Dfing on radio signals. Probably in the L/F range. This would give a rough bearing BUT NOT of course ... a FIX.
There is NO evidence that I can find that the Norfolk was fitted with ANY form of HF/DF, neither was the Suffolk.
From late April, from Norfolk;
"W/T conditions in the Denmark Strait.
Receiving on L/F is not very difficult.
H/F conditions are very bad.
Frequently impossible to hear Rugby GM broadcasts on any H/F transmission>'
It should be noted that in this part of the world transmissions by L/F were often made to ensure getting the message through.
M/F was not often used because of its relatively short range,; ie, not being able to reach the UK.
It was NOT the practice to send on M/F to Iceland, and then on to London because of message corruption.
From Norfolk's records.
Ist April 1941.
"Carried out RD/F exercise with Derbyshire."
There are previously dated items of a similar nature that mention the use of RD/F. This refers to Dfing on radio transmissions.
"Fitted at Rosyth with 286m. Undocked on 10th May 1941."
This was the first time that the Norfolk was fitted with ANY form of radar. People should make note that it states that radar WAS fitted in this period. About ONE week in dock.
20th May 1941.
"numerous ice floes encountered, visibility dropped to five cables in fog. Speed reduced to 9 knots. RDF was operated whilst on the southern leg of the patrol to detect northbound ships."
NOTE the use of the term RDF to denote the use of radar, as distinct from the term RD/F.
As can be noted, the use of RD/F does NOT refer to radar. Nor can it, because the ship had not been fitted with any form of radar until early May. Therefore the use of the term RD/F during the Bismarck episode MUST refer to Dfing on radio signals. Probably in the L/F range. This would give a rough bearing BUT NOT of course ... a FIX.
There is NO evidence that I can find that the Norfolk was fitted with ANY form of HF/DF, neither was the Suffolk.
From late April, from Norfolk;
"W/T conditions in the Denmark Strait.
Receiving on L/F is not very difficult.
H/F conditions are very bad.
Frequently impossible to hear Rugby GM broadcasts on any H/F transmission>'
It should be noted that in this part of the world transmissions by L/F were often made to ensure getting the message through.
M/F was not often used because of its relatively short range,; ie, not being able to reach the UK.
It was NOT the practice to send on M/F to Iceland, and then on to London because of message corruption.
Re: The Plot
Dear All,
Just a further note on the 'plot' just re reading the reconstructed Kriegstagebuch of the BC (Sorry for writing BS!) on page 131 it states that a message was received from Gruppe Nord at 0634 hrs informing the BC of Norfolk's 0541 signal. Their interception of this message reads "1 Battleship (Therfore an estimated bearing on BC) at 280 degrees 16nm 220 degrees" and then the Norfolk's position report. I presume this is the 276 degree 15nm signal? (Showing the Germans made errors too!) If it is the case that this is on record on the German side would this seperate piece of evidence corroborate that evidence given at the 2nd board? Therefore would the only evidence of a cover up be one of covering up for the inadequate nature of the 1st board? I totally agree with Antonio and Alberto that it would not be in the interest of the conduct of the war to expose such things, thus giving rise to a second inquiry to attempt a more documented piece of work (Which in actual fact still contained errors). This would also explain the Admiralty correction of Tovey's despatch in 1948, as this was another error that required attention?
Cag.
Just a further note on the 'plot' just re reading the reconstructed Kriegstagebuch of the BC (Sorry for writing BS!) on page 131 it states that a message was received from Gruppe Nord at 0634 hrs informing the BC of Norfolk's 0541 signal. Their interception of this message reads "1 Battleship (Therfore an estimated bearing on BC) at 280 degrees 16nm 220 degrees" and then the Norfolk's position report. I presume this is the 276 degree 15nm signal? (Showing the Germans made errors too!) If it is the case that this is on record on the German side would this seperate piece of evidence corroborate that evidence given at the 2nd board? Therefore would the only evidence of a cover up be one of covering up for the inadequate nature of the 1st board? I totally agree with Antonio and Alberto that it would not be in the interest of the conduct of the war to expose such things, thus giving rise to a second inquiry to attempt a more documented piece of work (Which in actual fact still contained errors). This would also explain the Admiralty correction of Tovey's despatch in 1948, as this was another error that required attention?
Cag.
-
Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Re: The Plot
Hello everybody,
@ Cag,
just to allow you to properly follow the explanations we are providing here in, I think it is necessary for me to explain you that the Norfolk 05.41 enemy interception radio message is reporting the assumed distance of 16 sea miles on bearing 276° between Norfolk and the enemy, most likely to the Bismarck at that time.
The 10 sea miles distance of the Hood First board is the distance between Norfolk and Hood at 06.00.
This is the distance that was changed using " The Plot ", and became 15 sea miles.
That distance of 15 sea miles at the Hood Second board, given the angles and bearings on that moment placed Norfolk more or less at 16 sea miles from the enemy at 06.00, while the previous distance of 10 sea miles from Hood at 06.00 declared at the Hood First Board was placing the Norfolk at 11 sea miles from the enemy at 06.00, so well within own guns firing effective range.
This is the reason why that distance between Norfolk and Hood at 06.00 was changed from 20.000 yards ( 10 sea miles ) to 30.000 yards ( 15 sea miles ).
For better reference you can use the Hood First board diagram here in :
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 1_to59.htm
this one :
I hope my explanation of the situation is clear enough for you now.
I am sure that now you, like everybody else will immediately go and read the Norfolk war diary that was reporting the Hood on bearing 220° from her at 14 sea miles at 05.50 ... and make a guess about it ... like I already did ...
Bye Antonio
@ Cag,
just to allow you to properly follow the explanations we are providing here in, I think it is necessary for me to explain you that the Norfolk 05.41 enemy interception radio message is reporting the assumed distance of 16 sea miles on bearing 276° between Norfolk and the enemy, most likely to the Bismarck at that time.
The 10 sea miles distance of the Hood First board is the distance between Norfolk and Hood at 06.00.
This is the distance that was changed using " The Plot ", and became 15 sea miles.
That distance of 15 sea miles at the Hood Second board, given the angles and bearings on that moment placed Norfolk more or less at 16 sea miles from the enemy at 06.00, while the previous distance of 10 sea miles from Hood at 06.00 declared at the Hood First Board was placing the Norfolk at 11 sea miles from the enemy at 06.00, so well within own guns firing effective range.
This is the reason why that distance between Norfolk and Hood at 06.00 was changed from 20.000 yards ( 10 sea miles ) to 30.000 yards ( 15 sea miles ).
For better reference you can use the Hood First board diagram here in :
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 1_to59.htm
this one :
- ADM1164351DiagB.jpg (37.12 KiB) Viewed 1028 times
I am sure that now you, like everybody else will immediately go and read the Norfolk war diary that was reporting the Hood on bearing 220° from her at 14 sea miles at 05.50 ... and make a guess about it ... like I already did ...
Bye Antonio
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 )
Re: The Plot
So you now accept that Suffolk did a 360d turn at ~0542?Antonio Bonomi wrote:
So for everybody convenience I have added also the 05.35 bearing of 350° between the PoW and the Suffolk, ... in GREEN on the map ... so you can see how now the 8 bearings we have available, ... ALL fit on the map, ... once you just adjust the cross bearings using the 06.20 visual one between Norfolk and Suffolk at 06.20 for example.
Re: The Plot
Dear All,
Thank you Antonio for the explanation, I'm sorry I think I must not have been clear enough with my premise. I am aware that the cover up theory is based on the 0600 hrs positions (Diagram B triangle) I was searching to find corroborating evidence that may help, if the Norfolk signal of 0541 giving an estimated distance is corroborated by German sources at the time would this then at least lend some credence to the distance evidence given at the 2nd board as opposed to the speedily summarised evidence used in the first? (Admitted by Blake as regard the evidence taken on Norfolk) I would not wish to disminish your cover up evidence just trying to tie up evidence from different sources, (As not much seems to) ie if there is evidence that the crew on Norfolk did believe that the distance to BC was 16 nm at 0541 and the ship did not increase or decrease speed at any time would it then be logical to imagine that at the crutial time of 0600 she would have been at a similar distance?
Cag.
Thank you Antonio for the explanation, I'm sorry I think I must not have been clear enough with my premise. I am aware that the cover up theory is based on the 0600 hrs positions (Diagram B triangle) I was searching to find corroborating evidence that may help, if the Norfolk signal of 0541 giving an estimated distance is corroborated by German sources at the time would this then at least lend some credence to the distance evidence given at the 2nd board as opposed to the speedily summarised evidence used in the first? (Admitted by Blake as regard the evidence taken on Norfolk) I would not wish to disminish your cover up evidence just trying to tie up evidence from different sources, (As not much seems to) ie if there is evidence that the crew on Norfolk did believe that the distance to BC was 16 nm at 0541 and the ship did not increase or decrease speed at any time would it then be logical to imagine that at the crutial time of 0600 she would have been at a similar distance?
Cag.
-
Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Re: The Plot
Hello everybody,
@ Cag,
sorry, I thought that you were mixing up the 05.41 with the 06.00 measurements, ... my fault.
I see what you mean, but time ago I made an easy explanation about the reasons why it is simply impossible for the Norfolk to be at 06.00 at 15 sea miles from the Hood, assuming the Norfolk war diary entry at 05.50 being valid and positioning the Norfolk at 14 sea miles from Hood on bearing 220°.
Here it is, and it is easy to realize that if Norfolk is on position A at 05.50, ... and sailed the track Pinchin depicted from 05.50 until 06.00, ... she will be in position B at 06.00, ... surely never on position C, ... it is impossible.
The statement of being at 15 sea miles from Hood at 06.00 is in opposition to the own war diary statement of being at 14 sea miles from Hood at 05.50. One of the 2 is clearly incorrect.
Once you work the map and the other bearing you will realize that the war diary is correct, and Wake-Walker was wrong, in fact to make it at 15 sea miles on " The Plot " respecting the 14 sea miles at 05.50, Pinchin depicted an incorrect Hood track on his plot as you can easily verify.
@ Dunmunro,
you asked :
What happened at 05.42 ?
We have 3 inputs here to be evaluated :
1) Capt Ellis own report describing the turn back due to a "mirage" that Pinchin depicted at 05.42 on " The Plot " and Paton shows on the Norfolk Strategical map.
2) Norfolk own war diary telling us that enemy appeared to turn back but at 05.47 ...
2) We have Capt Ellis autobiography telling us he was at 18.000 yards at open fire, so at 05.52/53.
I like opinions and suggestions here now ...
Bye Antonio
@ Cag,
sorry, I thought that you were mixing up the 05.41 with the 06.00 measurements, ... my fault.
I see what you mean, but time ago I made an easy explanation about the reasons why it is simply impossible for the Norfolk to be at 06.00 at 15 sea miles from the Hood, assuming the Norfolk war diary entry at 05.50 being valid and positioning the Norfolk at 14 sea miles from Hood on bearing 220°.
Here it is, and it is easy to realize that if Norfolk is on position A at 05.50, ... and sailed the track Pinchin depicted from 05.50 until 06.00, ... she will be in position B at 06.00, ... surely never on position C, ... it is impossible.
- 0550_versus_0600_02.jpg (67.32 KiB) Viewed 971 times
Once you work the map and the other bearing you will realize that the war diary is correct, and Wake-Walker was wrong, in fact to make it at 15 sea miles on " The Plot " respecting the 14 sea miles at 05.50, Pinchin depicted an incorrect Hood track on his plot as you can easily verify.
@ Dunmunro,
you asked :
Very difficult to answer this one now. We have frozen the 04.47 until 05.41 Suffolk track now.So you now accept that Suffolk did a 360d turn at ~0542?
What happened at 05.42 ?
We have 3 inputs here to be evaluated :
1) Capt Ellis own report describing the turn back due to a "mirage" that Pinchin depicted at 05.42 on " The Plot " and Paton shows on the Norfolk Strategical map.
2) Norfolk own war diary telling us that enemy appeared to turn back but at 05.47 ...
2) We have Capt Ellis autobiography telling us he was at 18.000 yards at open fire, so at 05.52/53.
I like opinions and suggestions here now ...
Bye Antonio
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 )
-
Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1586
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The Plot
That's why Hood's track is different in Pinchin's plot: "Ranges of Hood are estimations given from bridge".Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,
@ Cag,
sorry, I thought that you were mixing up the 05.41 with the 06.00 measurements, ... my fault.
I see what you mean, but time ago I made an easy explanation about the reasons why it is simply impossible for the Norfolk to be at 06.00 at 15 sea miles from the Hood, assuming the Norfolk war diary entry at 05.50 being valid and positioning the Norfolk at 14 sea miles from Hood on bearing 220°.
Here it is, and it is easy to realize that if Norfolk is on position A at 05.50, ... and sailed the track Pinchin depicted from 05.50 until 06.00, ... she will be in position B at 06.00, ... surely never on position C, ... it is impossible.
The statement of being at 15 sea miles from Hood at 06.00 is in opposition to the own war diary statement of being at 14 sea miles from Hood at 05.50. One of the 2 is clearly incorrect.
Once you work the map and the other bearing you will realize that the war diary is correct, and Wake-Walker was wrong, in fact to make it at 15 sea miles on " The Plot " respecting the 14 sea miles at 05.50, Pinchin depicted an incorrect Hood track on his plot as you can easily verify.
It's absolutely irrelevant, if your map says something else. From Norfolk's point of view the track of Hood appeared different, that's a fact...like Hood's track is different from PG's point of view and PG's track is different from Suffolk's point of view.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
-
Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Re: The Plot
Hello everybody,
@ Herr Nilsson,
I agree with you Marc !
That is why the reality is what count, ... and the cross bearings are the most reliable way to reproduce it.
Those guys evaluated distances were absolutely unreliable, ... to realize where they were, ... one should have asked the tactical plots and look at the bearings and after cross them one to each others.
The Norfolk and Suffolk rangefinder measurements associated with a gunnery report would have helped too.
You wrote :
More, Capt Phillips even confirmed the distance at the second board ... while somebody else was coming with " The Plot ", a document so poorly done that anyone should have realized being unreliable at first look.
Anyhow, ... we realized what happened, ... what is right from what is wrong, ... and we even have a good idea of why it happened in that way.
The First board declaration was by far more accurate than the Second board one, no doubts about it.
Bye Antonio
@ Herr Nilsson,
I agree with you Marc !
That is why the reality is what count, ... and the cross bearings are the most reliable way to reproduce it.
Those guys evaluated distances were absolutely unreliable, ... to realize where they were, ... one should have asked the tactical plots and look at the bearings and after cross them one to each others.
The Norfolk and Suffolk rangefinder measurements associated with a gunnery report would have helped too.
You wrote :
YES, in fact Capt Phillips and Commander Luce clearly stated at what distance Hood was from them at the Hood First board ... signed by Wake-Walker and Kelburn too.From Norfolk's point of view the track of Hood appeared different, that's a fact...
More, Capt Phillips even confirmed the distance at the second board ... while somebody else was coming with " The Plot ", a document so poorly done that anyone should have realized being unreliable at first look.
Anyhow, ... we realized what happened, ... what is right from what is wrong, ... and we even have a good idea of why it happened in that way.
The First board declaration was by far more accurate than the Second board one, no doubts about it.
Bye Antonio
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 )
-
Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1586
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: The Plot
"Ranges of Hood are estimations given from bridge"
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
-
Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Re: The Plot
Hello everybody,
@ Herr Nilsson,
you wrote :
Bye Antonio
@ Herr Nilsson,
you wrote :
By whom in your opinion, ... and why different from the Capt Phillips ones ?Herr Nilsson wrote:"Ranges of Hood are estimations given from bridge"
Bye Antonio
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 )
Re: The Plot
Hi All,
Sorry Antonio it was most likely my fault in not explaining fully but no harm done. I do see your point and agree that some of the measurements are probably wrong (Maybe even both or more likely all of them!) but still think that its error rather than cover up (If it was cover up wouldn't these errors have been altered?) and the Pinchin map does have errors within it and they are not unexpected (If we are having problems with ranges bearings and inclinations that vary from board to board and person to person so must Mr Pinchin?). I've had a look at the logs of Suffolk & Norfolk to gauge their mean RPM and distance travelled. RPM and distance travelled for Norfolk at hourly intervals from 0100 to 0700 were 288.2/30.2nm, 287.4/30.2nm, 282.0/29.7nm, 271.2/28.8nm, 285.0/30.0nm, 284.7/30.0nm, 280.4/29.5nm. Suffolk, 277.7/29.5nm, 280.3/29.6nm, 280.0/29.6nm, 286.9/28.5nm, 275.0/29.2nm, 256.1/27.5nm, 220.2/29.6nm. Could the lower figures of Suffolk (256.1 and 220.2) show the manoeuvres you're unsure of? (0542 and 0629 turns away) It seems that the Norfolk was at a relatively constant RPM which may build up a better picture, hope this helps,
Cag.
Sorry Antonio it was most likely my fault in not explaining fully but no harm done. I do see your point and agree that some of the measurements are probably wrong (Maybe even both or more likely all of them!) but still think that its error rather than cover up (If it was cover up wouldn't these errors have been altered?) and the Pinchin map does have errors within it and they are not unexpected (If we are having problems with ranges bearings and inclinations that vary from board to board and person to person so must Mr Pinchin?). I've had a look at the logs of Suffolk & Norfolk to gauge their mean RPM and distance travelled. RPM and distance travelled for Norfolk at hourly intervals from 0100 to 0700 were 288.2/30.2nm, 287.4/30.2nm, 282.0/29.7nm, 271.2/28.8nm, 285.0/30.0nm, 284.7/30.0nm, 280.4/29.5nm. Suffolk, 277.7/29.5nm, 280.3/29.6nm, 280.0/29.6nm, 286.9/28.5nm, 275.0/29.2nm, 256.1/27.5nm, 220.2/29.6nm. Could the lower figures of Suffolk (256.1 and 220.2) show the manoeuvres you're unsure of? (0542 and 0629 turns away) It seems that the Norfolk was at a relatively constant RPM which may build up a better picture, hope this helps,
Cag.
-
Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Re: The Plot
Hello everybody,
@ Cag,
no problems, ... now all is clear.
Among gentlemen it is always a pleasure to share opinions and misunderstandings are easy to be resolved.
You are providing good data, but I need to make a small correction on it, since you provided 7 hours average speed for each heavy cruiser, starting at 00.00 until 07.00.
Here you have the correct way to read them :
I have used all those data to make my complete battle map, ... so I know them pretty well ... 
We have realized from my above maps that Suffolk used around 20 sea miles to sail from 05.00 until 05.41 at around 29/30 knots.
Consequently, assuming all the data being correct, she sailed only the remaining 7,5 sea miles on the last 19 minutes of that hour, from 05.41 until 06.00.
The turn of 360° slowed her down very much, ... so it is what happened, ... problem is when it happened ?
As I wrote above we have 2 possibilities :
1) We trust Capt Ellis official report and Pinchin and it happened at 05.42.
2) We trust the Norfolk war diary entry ( 05.47 enemy seems turning back ) and Capt Ellis autobiography and it happened probably at 05.53, after the open fire.
Opinions and evaluations are welcome.
Bye Antonio
@ Cag,
no problems, ... now all is clear.
Among gentlemen it is always a pleasure to share opinions and misunderstandings are easy to be resolved.
You are providing good data, but I need to make a small correction on it, since you provided 7 hours average speed for each heavy cruiser, starting at 00.00 until 07.00.
Here you have the correct way to read them :
- Norfolk_Suffolk_average_speed.jpg (55.42 KiB) Viewed 923 times
We have realized from my above maps that Suffolk used around 20 sea miles to sail from 05.00 until 05.41 at around 29/30 knots.
Consequently, assuming all the data being correct, she sailed only the remaining 7,5 sea miles on the last 19 minutes of that hour, from 05.41 until 06.00.
The turn of 360° slowed her down very much, ... so it is what happened, ... problem is when it happened ?
As I wrote above we have 2 possibilities :
1) We trust Capt Ellis official report and Pinchin and it happened at 05.42.
2) We trust the Norfolk war diary entry ( 05.47 enemy seems turning back ) and Capt Ellis autobiography and it happened probably at 05.53, after the open fire.
Opinions and evaluations are welcome.
Bye Antonio
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 )
Re: The Plot
Hello All,
Well it's nice we have two people with access to Norfolk and Suffolk's Logbooks. Then if one forgets to supply a piece of vital evidence that changes the whole complexion of things the other can fill it in..............
Cag gives us revolutions which is fascinating and shows us the nautical miles "travelled" does not necessarily correspond to the revs used. Now this kind of information is interesting. Are these from a pitot tube, Cheernikoff or other logging device?
Thanks for revealing additional information Cag, your perceptive analysis and willingness to divulge unedited original information belie your nominal "junior member" status. Welcome aboard.
All the best
wadinga
Well it's nice we have two people with access to Norfolk and Suffolk's Logbooks. Then if one forgets to supply a piece of vital evidence that changes the whole complexion of things the other can fill it in..............
Norfolk own war diary telling us that enemy appeared to turn back but at 05.47
It would be nice to see what it actually says especially if it indicates the ability to record something at 05:47 that won't actually happen until 05:53.1) We trust Capt Ellis official report and Pinchin and it happened at 05.42.
2) We trust the Norfolk war diary entry ( 05.47 enemy seems turning back ) and Capt Ellis autobiography and it happened probably at 05.53, after the open fire.
Cag gives us revolutions which is fascinating and shows us the nautical miles "travelled" does not necessarily correspond to the revs used. Now this kind of information is interesting. Are these from a pitot tube, Cheernikoff or other logging device?
Thanks for revealing additional information Cag, your perceptive analysis and willingness to divulge unedited original information belie your nominal "junior member" status. Welcome aboard.
All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"