The Plot

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nilsson wrote: "So Ellis is possibly influenced by Busch's already published book?"

Hi Marc,
for the distance only, it could possibly have been as you suggest, however for sure NOT for the reasons why he took the (thoughtful and delicate) decision not to open fire being in (effective) gun range, well explained in his account....

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

On the Norfolk strategical map we have the Suffolk position recorded at 05.41 from Norfolk and it is a perfect match at 05.41, ... the famous 319°, ... confirming they were so sure about Suffolk being there at that time to record it also in that map, where the Suffolk position is recorded just few times ... like 03.21, 05.41 and 08.00 ... se when Suffolk was transmitting and Norfolk was checking with R D/F her position.

R D/F? Says who?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

High-frequency direction finding, usually known by its abbreviation HF/DF or nickname huff-duff, is the common name for a type of Radio Direction Finder (RDF) introduced in World War II.

The RADIO Wireless Transmission W/T ( not Radar ) Direction Finding ( D/F ) of Suffolk performed by the Norfolk all the way thru the operation is confirmed by RearAdm W.F. Wake Walker report here below.

WW_Norfolk_to_Suffolk_bearings.jpg (64.39 KiB) Viewed 652 times

To be noticed that we have never seen the LOG of those HMS Norfolk ( neither of the HMS Suffolk ) RADIO Direction Finding measurements, probably recorded into the Norfolk and Suffolk Tactical plot's we DO NOT have as well.

A clear example of this way to determine the other Royal Navy warship positions around during the night is the Tactical Plot of PoW we do have.

DF_bearings_Suffolk_from_PoW.jpg (28.72 KiB) Viewed 652 times

It is obvious that both HMS Norfolk as well as HMS Suffolk did have the same technical capability PoW had to intercept RADIO W/T transmission from other units and determine the unit bearing, ... just as RearADm W.F. Wake-Walker confirmed on his report above.

To know more :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-freq ... on_finding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signals_intelligence

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

Ok, I understand. I was just confused, because RDF usually is attributed to Radar in the records concerning Rheinübung (have a look at the legend of Suffolk's strategical plot and ADM 234-509: H.M.S. Norfolk's Gunnery and R.D.F. During Operations Against "Bismarck") and "DF" to non-radar DF. I also was confused by your use of the word "checking" instead of "detecting".

So how precise is non-radar DF at all? Does the proximity of the magnetic north pole have any influence on the calibration (what Germans call "Funkbeschickung")?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

being an Electronic Engineer I should be supposed to know what I am talking about, ... but it is NOT an easy argument today, ... so we can imagine on WW2.

We do have an expert here in, ... with lot of passion and competence about it, ... and it is Dave Saxton ... :-)

You are absolutely right and the different wording and acronyms used can create misunderstanding and confusion, ... so I beg you pardon for that on my previous posting, ... this is the reason why I made it clear immediately, ... we are not talking RADAR but RADIO ( Wireless Transmission ) detection.

Here some documentation about the Royal Navy Radio Detection Finding system on WW2 :

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Tech-HFDF.htm

... and a video about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYGvAm8MMvQ

It must be said that one thing is to detect an unknown frequency, ... of the enemy, ... another one is detecting a known ship frequency on a well known used frequency channel used on purpose also to enable the friend ships identification.

I have attached the PoW bearings taken of Suffolk during the night just to demonstrate once for good and with no doubts that " detecting " capability being available on Royal Navy warships on that period.

You statement is very interesting :

So how precise is non-radar DF at all ?
Does the proximity of the magnetic north pole have any influence on the calibration (what Germans call "Funkbeschickung")?

I cannot respond you with a sure answer and maybe Dave Saxton can do it.

Regarding the calibration ( Funkbeschickung ) ... than maybe we have found the meaning of the D/c at 05.40/41 ... after the D/F at 05.36 from Norfolk.

After the detection, ... the D/F ... using the 05.33 radio transmission from Suffolk, ... they were able to do also the calibration using the 05.38 message transmission from Suffolk ... at 05.40/41 ... so the D/c.

It is interesting to notice that most likely using the same 05.33 radio message from Suffolk, ... the PoW was able to do the same thing she was doing all night long as I have showed you, ... and PoW measured bearing of Suffolk at 05.35 was 350°...

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

No, "Funkbeschickung" is a calibration done in port. The own ship deviates the waves of an radio signal of another ship, that means the direction of the signal isn't necessarily the direction of the ship, which has sent the signal. This deviation can be compensated by calibration.
I'm still reading D/e and I'm wondering, if "e" means "estimated".

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

Thank you for posting the excerpt from the PoW tactical plot tracing in your possession. Will you confirm for the others that there is no reference on it to any M/F D/F bearings from Suffolk transmissions or any other vessel after 03:36, and therefore none from the critical period 05;00-06:00?

Thus contradicting your own observation

and PoW measured bearing of Suffolk at 05.35 was 350°

My understanding is that there are three standards for bearing determination:

RDF transmitted energy sent to, and bounced back from the target ie radar (RDF as a name was meant to mislead and create confusion.) Dave Saxton can give us detailed chapter and verse for different sets' bearing performance.

HF/DF developed during the war, PoW may have had the FH3 receiver,an unreliable early set, which like other D/F depended on transmissions from the target. The high frequency waves allowed more accurate determination of bearing. The logged Suffolk transmissions may have come from this.

MF / DF a standard element of marine navigation since the First World War using frequencies allowing only much lower bearing accuracy and normally using triangulation to derive a cocked hat of bearings from fixed shore locations within which the vessel's position was........... somewhere. All the ships had this.

The metal hull of the vessel acted as a distorting aerial bending incoming radio waves by different amounts on different bearings in both the latter systems, and so periodically calibration was necessary, where the vessel anchored in a fixed location, with transmitters on known bearings and the error created by hull distortion mapped for 360 degrees from ships head.

This is the same process as the calibration of the ship's magnetic compass where magnetic field distortion from the shp's hull had to be compensated for.

See http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Scient ... 29_A2b.pdf for an early explanation.

Note ordinary single bearing transmissions of MF DF are so useful that Suffolk says:-

20. 0638 (B)-0734 (B). Course and speed as requisite for following enemy in general direction 210°, at 18 miles distance, and for working on to his starboard quarter, Norfolk being (from her reports) to port.

ie MF DF clearly fairly useless for locating Wake-Walker at all and left Ellis relying on Norfolk's transmitted position estimates to know whether CS1 was north or south of him. Unless this a detail of the elaborate set of lies made up at the time, including recording the idea of ranging on the aircraft to explain why he though he was within gun range of Prinz Eugen, except he wasn't at that time, but he had been earlier, except he had to keep that secret, and make everybody think he hadn't...........

Another important point is that M/F D/F has nowhere near the accuracy of visual bearings. However like visual bearings there is no indication of distance. If an assumed position is charted then it cannot be solely due to a bearing because a single bearing cannot give a position.

traced by Pinchin on " The Plot " as well only partially and ending up on the water ( ??? ??? )

of course the bearing ended in the water, Pinchin had no idea how far away Suffolk actually was. The bearings on the PoW tactical plot end in the water because the plotter had no idea how far away Suffolk was.

Antonio has been possession of the PoW tactical plot all along (something not many others might be aware of) and so he knows there has been no attempt on this document to correct retrospectively for dead reckoning errors for PoW, or to the the assumed tracks for Norfolk or Suffolk.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

Ok, I see what you mean ... so not the calibration of the signal just received, .. but the equipment initial calibration or set-up if you like to call it on that way.

That should have been done when the equipment was installed on the warship.

In any case here some suggestions I have received :

if D/c :

Correction ; Corrected; Centered; Calculated; Communication; Communicated; Command

if D/e:

Emission; Estimation; Estimated

What matter is the fact that either being D/c or D/e, ... on the tactical plot, ... somebody accepted it being the correct position of Suffolk at 05.41, ... since it was plotted on the Strategical map of Norfolk exactly with that bearing at 05.41.

Bye Antonio

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

before you start your usual way to change subject, ... coming in " from time to time " ... with the only intent to disqualify somebody research work, ... you should respond to my question about 06.20 versus 05.41 bearings.

Thanks for your prompt answer.

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All,
Thank you Antonio, Wadinga and all for your kind welcome! I am affraid you are right Antonio we must agree to disagree on the cover up theory, if the errors were limited to those that suggest some attempt at cover up I'd be a convert but there are so many in the whole thing (Not one witness testimony taken in the first and then in the second board are exactly the same) that it seems something that, within the remit of the boards and the equipment tolerances available back then, these errors were expected and easily accepted as the norm (Unlike today). I'm not an expert on D/F and can only give such information as to my researches on PoW but cannot for the life of me remember where I got the info and so apologise to those that I have used. Antonio is correct that most large British ships had a direction finding capability, on PoW a double diamond shaped antennae on the lower part of the mainmast upright (Aft), but I believe 'Huff Duff' (High frequency direction finding) was a later addition (A double square antennae?) usually smaller in size on the bridge face (KG V DoY etc). The D/F at the time of the DS battle was able to provide an approximate azimuth bearing (Line bearing) but to gauge anything better you required a 'cut' or a second D/F bearing that would 'cut' the first to give an approx distance and better estimated position (Royal Navy had an accepted circular fix error of 100 miles, Kriegsmarine 70 miles) three or more would give you a 'fix'. If I remember right the shore stations used Gnomic charts (Circular lined) to help with this task, which was the problem with the error with the BS radio transmission cuts as on KG V when plotting they used Mercator navigational charts and it took the Admiralty quite a bit of convincing to get Tovey to believe BS was heading for France.
Hope this is of some help,
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,
here the diamond loop antenna of the PoW, just before the DS mission (as mentioned by Mr. Cag in his post above; by the way, of course welcome on board from me as well).....

Prince%2520of%2520Wales.jpg (178.79 KiB) Viewed 609 times

Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Thank you Alberto!

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,


You keep accusing me of changing the subject- why? I have no intention of disqualifying your or anyone's research work. Merely refuting some of the outrageous and unjustified conclusions drawn to further the attempt to prove Conspiracy and Cover-Up

This is the Plot and I'm asking about your identification of a D/F measurement critical to your latest diagram.

and PoW measured bearing of Suffolk at 05.35 was 350°

and I'm asking you where on the PoW tactical plot this bearing exists, or where in the Log Book it exists. Or any other place where it is described as D/F measurement. Maybe it's like Busch's "radar measurement" to Suffolk, which is a radar measurement because it looks to Alberto like a radar measurement, so he likes to present it as if it is one. I guess this looks to you like a D/F measurement, and you feel free to call it so, which is fine for you, but maybe not for the rest of us. Especially since we can't see it not being there in either the tactical plot or the Logbook, because you haven't shown it to us, not being there. or indeed being there

The aerial in PoW is far too big to be an HF/DF aerial, which is physically small to suit the short wavelengths of H/F transmissions. It is actually, a Bellini-Tosi (two famous and well-regarded Italian engineers) M/F D/F antenna as we identified just under a year ago (Dec 2014). Thanks Mr Raven.

Cag, the excellent Mr Raven produced a valuable piece of evidence on the shoreside D/F muddle, since the Gnomic charts explanation is a year one navigation student error. He suggests the bearings were assigned to the wrong shore stations and that is why they produced an incorrect result.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

Sean, it is the third time that I ask you :

Do you agree on the evident fact that once on " The Plot " I correct the map by using the 06.20 bearing reference of 335°, the one you consider the only reliable ( visual ) between Norfolk and Suffolk traced tracks, than the 05.41 bearing traced partially by Pinchin goes automatically on the proper place connecting the Norfolk with the Suffolk track exactly at the 05.41 time referenced positions ?

Since I cannot see how you can say NO, ... and I showed you the evidence using 2 BLUE lines on map here under, ... I just wait for your agreement and I will be satisfied with it.

Plot_redone_adjusted_bearings_077.jpg (70.31 KiB) Viewed 555 times

Once this is established once for good, ... than we can move on other analysis. Thanks.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "Maybe it's like Busch's "radar measurement" to Suffolk, which is a radar measurement because it looks to Alberto like a radar measurement, so he likes to present it as if it is one. "

Hi Sean,
I'm open to discuss your opinion if it is different. When I see 176 hectometers, I cannot imagine that it is just a guess-estimate from F.O.Busch.......

you wrote: "The aerial in PoW is far too big to be an HF/DF aerial, which is physically small to suit the short wavelengths of H/F transmissions. It is actually, a Bellini-Tosi (two famous and well-regarded Italian engineers) M/F D/F antenna as we identified just under a year ago (Dec 2014)."

how time passes, when you have fun......@Cag: the full discussion is at page 37 of this same thread !

Bye, Alberto