The Plot

[Herr Nilsson]

Antonio, I have no idea what you are doing at all?

häh.jpg (101.64 KiB) Viewed 803 times

[wadinga]

Hello Marc,
I'm glad I'm not the only one finding it confusing.

Antonio appears to be taking some positions from Suffolk's strategical map, which may or may not incorporate the retrospective navigational correction, and then compare them with later positions for Suffolk on Pinchin's Plot, which may incorporate Norfolk's navigational corrections.

All this is required to question the accuracy of the Plot, but in no way establishes culpability as part of a cover-up. As our new friend Cag (this forum is costly in terms of commitment but otherwise free) has noticed, the Plot has its shortcomings, and with its multiple entries for Bismarck and Hood's tracks is clearly a rushed job produced overnight for the second enquiry, and has not had months of analysis (or conspiracy).

Antonio continues to tease me with references to different recorded speeds for Suffolk before and after 05:00 from the Suffolk log. Does anybody have these values?

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dunmunro wrote: "Even Ellis's memoir is honest, but alas, inaccurate.""

Hi Duncan,
I disagree. You insist on "inaccuracies", that of course can exist in different reports, but you seem unable/unwilling to realize that Capt.Ellis account is not inaccurate compared to his "official report".

Ellis account is a completely different story, written having in front of him the "official report" : no mirage causing any turn to north, 18000 yards vs 15 sm, and, most of all, the detailed explanation why he did not order to open fire.......

It's not a matter of details, sorry, it's another scenario. One of the two is clearly false.......If you prefer to trust the "official report" then you choose to say that, INTENTIONALLY, Ellis wrote a false in his autobiography, trying to sell a better story for himself. The "innocent" inaccuracies are out of question here.

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

Antonio continues to tease me with references to different recorded speeds for Suffolk before and after 05:00 from the Suffolk log. Does anybody have these values?

04:00-05:00 29.2 knots
05:00-06:00 27.5 knots

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nilsson wrote: "04:00-05:00 29.2 knots - 05:00-06:00 27.5 knots"

Hi Marc,
exactly the figures that could be reasonably be expected, for sure not 22 knots..... What is your source please

Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

Marc, I do not know what you are doing here ....

It is enough to measure the distance between points 1 and 2 to realize that they moved the enemy from the radio message declared 15 sea miles at 04.47, ... to 20,5 sea miles on the map you placed under my example ... ... so I am sure that now you will be able to explain me why they did it on that way on that map ?

More, ... if you continue with the measurements ... you will be able to realize the German ships used speed on that map ( close to 30 knots ) ... that once the track was traced more distant, ... was increased while the track has been modified too ... as you can realize yourself by comparing with my one. In this way they enabled the overall results modification.

Are you able to realize it now ?

So, please explain me what you are doing here ... since we do know that Suffolk had the enemy at 15 sea miles at 04.47 ... and the German units were sailing at 27 knots.

I do not like to play with numbers ... so 15 sea miles is where the point 3 is now, please verify .... and 27 knots after must be the German warship speed and their track is much closer to the Suffolk track in reality ... as you can see on my map.

Marc_01_0447_0541.jpg (67.41 KiB) Viewed 788 times

I wait for your explanations ... before discussing the average Suffolk speed ...

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Dunmunro wrote: "Even Ellis's memoir is honest, but alas, inaccurate.""

Hi Duncan,
I disagree. You insist on "inaccuracies", that of course can exist in different reports, but you seem unable/unwilling to realize that Ellis account is not inaccurate compared to his "official report".

Ellis account is a completely different story, written having in front of him the "official report" : no mirage causing any turn to north, 18000 yards vs 15 sm, and, most of all, the detailed explanation why he did not order to open fire.......

It's not a matter of details, sorry, it's another scenario. One of the two is clearly false.......If you prefer to trust the "official report" then you choose to say that INTENTIONALLY Ellis wrote a false in his autobiography, trying to sell a better story for himself. The "innocent" inaccuracies are out of question here.

Bye, Alberto

Ellis's memoir is devoid of detail. It doesn't answer why he opened fire at ~0620 but not earlier nor does he even mention it.

There's no information regarding his observations of the battle.

There is no "detailed" explanation as to why he didn't open fire, nor does the reason given stand up to scrutiny, because Suffolk should have at least opened fire after Hood blew up, and/or opened fire on Prinz Eugen. PoW was monitoring the FC wave and reported nothing from Suffolk.

Suffolk's witnesses at the Hood inquiry were shown the plot with Suffolk's track, showing the turn North at 0542 and no one protested that it was inaccurate. There's no corroboration of Suffolk's range during the battle from the German side. When an RN cruiser at 18k yds would have caused comment, at least, from the German side.

Antonio's map shows Suffolk and Norfolk only 15nm apart at 0541( but they couldn't see each other), with range coming down rapidly so that at 0553 they should be easily visible, yet they cannot see each other, according to Ellis's memoirs, and wouldn't see each other until 0620. This is something that you won't admit too, and have to invent an non existent "mist" to explain.

Finally, why wouldn't Ellis simply reveal the "conspiracy" in his memoirs?


There are huge discrepancies between the Ellis's memoirs and what was recorded on both sides of the battle.

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Dunmunro:
Hi Duncan,
what you say above is correct. The 2 accounts are totally different, but it is not correct that in the "official report" you have more information regarding e.g. the battle itself (except the timing of the open fire...). The explanation why he did not open fire is precise and it is the only aspect of the battle he developed in his book, while the "official report".....even "ignored" the distance of Suffolk at open fire......

Ellis wrote his autobiography WITH the "official report" in front of him, if something was considered important AND correct by him, he was picking it up, as he did for the evening engagement in the very following page.

Again, the 2 DS stories are totally different and one of them is an INTENTIONAL FALSE......your choice which one (I have my own opinion).....

Bye, Alberto

P.S.To answer your question, I don't think Ellis intended to reveal the cover-up. His purpose was just to write his story, explaining his decisions, not to accuse / involve anyone else.

[Herr Nilsson]

@ Antonio,

My fault, the Suffolk's strategical plot is stretched in relation to "the plot". Adjusting it (almost) solves the problem of the 15 miles. I think you (or "we") should also consider that the small scale of the strategical plot and the line width of the tracks will inevitably result in inaccuracies. However, I think it's accurate enough to show that your tracks are going astray.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I see that you start realizing that the HMS Suffolk Strategical Plot by Ltnt Paton made on June 11th, 1941 does contain inaccuracies ( almost 15 sea miles is not acceptable ) and that its small scale do provide room for some easy alterations, ... like the German track.

In any case, since you are the only one currently responding on this matter trying to work on it to find a solution with me, ... please take the chance also to correct on Paton map the German track, ... both for speed as well as for the track they really run.

On the attachment here below you have the correct German run track in RED and the incorrect one traced by Paton in PURPLE.

Please remember and keep in account :

05.21 - Alter course to 170 degrees (PG)

05.32 - Alter course to 220 degrees (PG)

Too easy for me to tell you that once you have made all the corrections needed ... on speed, bearings and course, ... your final result will be really close to my initial provided map, ... but around 5/6 sea miles far away from " The Plot " position of Suffolk at 05.41.

Just the amount of sea miles added by Pinchin on the battlefield enlargement ...

German_tracks_Marc_01_0447_0541.jpg (73.47 KiB) Viewed 754 times

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

I was the one who always said that all maps are containing inaccuracies and in case of "the plot" all mismatches are easy to explain without the need of any "cover up".

Anyway, speaking of the German track. Tell me, what did the British know about the German track????

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

there are maps not intentionally modified, containing inaccuracies ... and there are maps intentionally modified like " The Plot ".

The British surely knew the German warships being at 15 sea miles at 04.47 on bearing 184°.

If we only had the 13 Suffolk Tactical plots somebody took away ... we will be knowing many more details about the real knowledge of the enemy run tracks, ... and Suffolk real distances from them.

But just to give you something to think about, the British surely knew PoW and Hood run track, and now tell me what did they use on " The Plot " ?

Please do not tell me about innocent errors and inaccuracies ... since that map was used to change a previously declared distance, signed in front of a board of inquiry.

You are free to believe what you like ... I believe Capt Ellis autobiography being correct ... providing another clear evidence about the " Cover Up " on going ... about 06.13 for PoW and around 15 sea miles for Norfolk and Suffolk.

Both modified events and data ...

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

... and there are maps intentionally modified like " The Plot ".

Which is just an assertion

The British surely knew the German warships being at 15 sea miles at 04.47 on bearing 184°.

What did Suffolk report in her "pre-conspiracy" signals about the course changes of the Germans between 04:47 and 05:41?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you wrote :

Which is just an assertion

No, I am sorry, it is demonstrated by the 7 available bearings once you correct that map, and by the traced Hood track in there.

You should have realized it better than others ... having worked on it time ago.

Now we have also Capt Ellis autobiography, which imply that it shows something never happened.

How do you take that in account now ?

You have all the data, please tell me what do you mean with your request.

To me what count is what the German warships really did, and the Suffolk/Norfolk bearings to them all the way thru.

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

So what about the German course changes at 0533 and 0538 reported by Suffolk. The British didn't know PGs war diary and Busch's book. They had to rely on the information available. Or do you disagree?