The Plot

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Plot

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:11 pm

Cag wrote: "The height at which someone observes something is critical to their observable limit and therefore what is possible to be seen"

Hi Mr.Cag,
you are perfectly right and our friend Tommy303 had produced some time ago the diagram (the one with Hood profile visible at various distances) based on the approximate height of a County class cruiser Compass Platform, somewhere in the mega-thread "Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War".


However, while what can be seen depends on distance, how things can be seen (details, definition, colors, etc) depends much on visibility conditions, light quality and direction, eye acumen, etc.


The photos I have seen of DS battle (taken I assume with a straight 50mm lens from a anyhow considerable distance from a moving platform) are of such a bad quality that I would not take them in much account having to judge what could be visible at that distance. I would even say that the film frames are in some way better than the photos......
To make another example, if you look at the photos taken for the damage report of PoW, aground, without any stress and being even able to place the camera on or against a support, you realize how the portable photographic equipment (camera, films, light manual estimation, etc) at that time gave really very poor results if not managed by a professional.
Just my humble opinion here, of course.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3191
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:21 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Cag,

given the track, the course and the speed of HMS Norfolk between 05.50 and 06.00 ... it does not take much to realize that if Norfolk was at 14 sea miles from the Hood at 05.50 having Hood on bearing 220° like her own war diary declare, ... she will be at around 11 sea miles from Hood at 06.00 having the Hood on bearing 230°.

Nothing can change it ... unless somebody can demonstrate that the war diary entry is incorrect ... but also the radio message at 05.41 declaring the enemy on bearing 276° is incorrect ... and the 2 bearings at open fire from " The Plot " are incorrect ... and the gunnery report measured distance at open fire and cease fire are incorrect ...

Too much ... I think that Norfolk will remain at around 11 sea miles from Hood at 06.00 ... :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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Postby dunmunro » Thu Oct 08, 2015 9:38 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Cag,

given the track, the course and the speed of HMS Norfolk between 05.50 and 06.00 ... it does not take much to realize that if Norfolk was at 14 sea miles from the Hood at 05.50 having Hood on bearing 220° like her own war diary declare, ... she will be at around 11 sea miles from Hood at 06.00 having the Hood on bearing 230°.

Nothing can change it ... unless somebody can demonstrate that the war diary entry is incorrect ... but also the radio message at 05.41 declaring the enemy on bearing 276° is incorrect ... and the 2 bearings at open fire from " The Plot " are incorrect ... and the gunnery report measured distance at open fire and cease fire are incorrect ...

Too much ... I think that Norfolk will remain at around 11 sea miles from Hood at 06.00 ... :wink:

Bye Antonio :D


How could they measure 14nm with any accuracy? It could just as easily have been 16nm. Norfolk's gunnery report states much longer ranges than 11nm.

Normally one looks at the facts contained in the primary documents and then creates a theory that conforms to the facts. However, here you've created a theory and then try to change the facts (claiming that some primary documents are forged) to fit it.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3191
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:29 am

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you are simply using the same approach Wadinga ( Sean ) is using, ... for you everything is doubtful, ...vague, .. not reliable, ... uncertain, ... the only thing you care is nothing changes from the available version of the facts.

Apart the fact that if we do not have more reliable documents, like the tactical plots or the gunnery reports for example, ... one should ask himself why and who took them away from future public knowledge ... :wink:

... what you and Wadinga are not doing, ... is to provide your version of the facts and support it with data, maps and distances.

You are only trying to refute my work, ... but not providing your data and the reference base supporting it.

Too easy to try to demolish somebody work with those generic statements based on nothing.

We have some reliable data and some less reliable data, ...unfortunately we have also intentionally altered data to try to build up a different story, ... and with this data we have to play, ... it is not my fault nor my choice, ... it is simply the way it is.

I invite you and everybody else here in, .. to put Norfolk at bearing 276° from the enemy at 05.41, ... and at 319° from Suffolk on the same moment, ... and than sail toward the Holland squadron on course 220° doing the track Pinchin traced for example, assuming it is correct, ... matching the 14 sea miles at 05.50 from Hood, ... and with the turn on 270° for 5 minutes from 05.55 until 06.00, ... of course at 30 knots like the war diary is telling us she did between 05.00 and 06.00, ... and reach the position she ends up at 06.00.

Than you can tell us at what distance Norfolk will be from Hood on that moment.

If you end up at 15 sea miles from Hood, ... I will come to your city and pay you a pizza and a couple of beers ... :wink:

Guys, ... we have to make it simple here ... "The Plot " is wrong as we all know this now, ... and Norfolk was at around 11 sea miles from Hood at 06.00, ... like Diagram B, Capt Phillips, Comm Luce, RaerAdm Wake-Walker and Ltnt Kelburn signed for on May 31st, 1941.

Than something changed ... and we have realized why and how it happened ... :think:

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 )

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Plot

Postby Cag » Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:36 pm

Dear All,
Just some further info from the Suffolk and Norfolk logs (ADM 53/115099 and ADM 53/114810). The logs do show the speeds at which the ships could have travelled under certain conditions, ie Authorised full power, with all despatch 9/10ths, with despatch 3/5ths, convenient despatch 2/5ths, moderate despatch 1/5th, and economical speed. For Norfolk the figures of miles travelled through water were, highest to lowest, 30.0, 29.0, 27.3, 24.2, 19.5, 13.0 nm per hour. For Suffolk 28.8, 28.0, 26.1, 23.6, 19.4, 10.3 nm per hour taken from trials and power curves. BC and PG were travelling at 27 knots which according to the Hood Association website equates to 911 yds per minute of travel. If Norfolk could achieve 30.0 mph of travel at full power that would equate to 1000 yds per minute? (ie 89 yds per minute speed excess over BC and PG?) Therefore Norfolk would take approx twenty two minutes and twenty eight seconds to gain one mile on BC and PG? (Forgetting for a minute that at some point BC increased speed) If we err on the side of caution and go with the testimonies of Schmundt, that the gap between BC and PG was 3000m or approx 3280yds, and the Diagram B evidence that Norfolk was 11nm distant from the German ships (The closest as opposed to 15nm of the 2nd board), then BC was 22,000yds away and PG was 25,280yds away. According to the Navweaps website the max range of the 8" guns on Norfolk were 30,650yds meaning BC and PG were always within 'max' range. Therefore would it be an idea if we can try to understand what the 'effective' gun range of Norfolk was as then we can calculate whether it was possible for the cruisers to have closed on PG, as this was Holland's intended target for Norfolk and Suffolk (Never BC) in the time available by formulating this from when this speed increase would have occurred (ie 0537 PoW sighting report, 0543 Hood sighting report, 0542 Suffolks reception of the enemy reports, 0550 visual sighting of BCS 1 by Norfolk) and to the point of reaching of this 'effective' gun range. Would this then show, if we assume that Wake-Walker was meant to engage PG with or without orders as opposed to continued shadowing which is still very much open to debate, if it was ever possible for the cruisers to reach this range and for it to occur within the time frame and thereby resolving whether there was a case for Wake-Walker to answer and from that the neccessity for a cover up?
Best wishes to all,
Cag

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: The Plot

Postby alecsandros » Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:00 pm

Cag wrote: According to the Navweaps website the max range of the 8" guns on Norfolk were 30,650yds meaning BC and PG were always within 'max' range. Therefore would it be an idea if we can try to understand what the 'effective' gun range of

... Norfolk's guns were similar to Suffolk's guns, and Suffolk fired on Prinz Eugen from 28900 yards later that day (according to her own log).

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Plot

Postby Cag » Fri Oct 09, 2015 2:52 pm

Dear All,
Thank you Alecsandros very much for your help, would you know if this range was effective as it is close to the max range of 30,650? If we assume that an effective range (ie to be able to gauge line of fire fall and short or over etc) would be around 20,000yds? And that neither BC or PG increased speed (Which we know they did) and that Norfolk began her charge in at 0537 then it would take Norfolk over 59 minutes to overhaul the 5280 yds to PG and over 22 minutes to overhaul BC (ie 0636hrs to PG and 0559 to BC). Would the Admiralty know these figures (Effective fire range speed of overhaul etc) and therfore decide that there was no case to answer and therefore no cover up meaning the errors are just errors? I am not suggesting that this is proof of anything as I believe that everything is still open as all evidence shown at the moment can only be claimed as circumstantial and can be argued against (Both for and against a cover up). I do still believe that the main task assigned to the cruisers was shadowing (As attested to by their logs) but if we are suggesting a cover up for non-action we must provide proof that effective fire on PG was in fact possible, just a suggestion.
Cag.

User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: The Plot

Postby paulcadogan » Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:20 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Sometimes an image is better than 10.000 words .... :wink:

Phillips_Hood_2nd_board.jpg




Consider this... Phillips' drawing was of what he thought he saw - a hit on the hull in the vicinity of the starboard torpedo tubes - done in good faith....and which he commented on to Wake-Walker.

But the hit was in actuality on the boat deck on the port side well above the port torpedo tubes i.e. much higher in the ship on the opposite side!

So when Phillips thought he was looking at hull, he was actually seeing boat deck.

FWIW.

And I DO believe that, based on all that has been presented and argued over these many months, the "Plot" is not accurate. But if it was intentional inaccuracy for a cover up, why weren't the PoW's maps by Rowell altered to reflect 0613? This was a glaring hole in the cover up scenario - which ironically so many authors looked at and reproduced over the many years without questioning!

I think too that it will never be possible a track chart showing what TRULY happened with all the attendant variables. Antonio, you have put tremendous effort and time into what you have produced, and argued your points with passion. But unfortunately, as evidenced in the entire discussion, questions and arguments to the contrary will remain. After all, none of us was there.

Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Plot

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:29 pm

Cag wrote: "I do still believe that the main task assigned to the cruisers was shadowing (As attested to by their logs) but if we are suggesting a cover up for non-action we must provide proof that effective fire on PG was in fact possible, just a suggestion."

Hi Mr.Cag,
while I agree with you on the lack of a definitive proof of a cover-up (just many many circumstantial evidences.... :think: ), I would not focus too much on the role (shadowing) or on the effectiveness of fire (intended as a hit probability larger than.....).


IMHO, when you are involved in a battle where there is even only ONE little chance of a lucky hit from your ship, it's worth to open fire, as without doing so, you cannot expect to score any lucky hit anyway.....

Apart from that, W-W himself admitted that 8" guns were effective at ranges of 20000 yards or less, in his report at point 22, when he decided not to re-engage.
But Suffolk straddled at 21150 yards and fired anyway her guns at 28900 yards at 18:55, and Capt.Ellis regretted that "Lady Luck" was not helping him (as per his autobiography pag.13-14, chapter 19).

I guess that he was regretting much more for not having open fire at 5:53 when he was (according to the same autobiography) at only 18000 yards from BS (pag.11 same chapter). In this case he was not fired at, and he preferred to just follow and flank-mark..... :kaput:


Finally, being BS more close, I don't understand why the British cruisers should have taken care of PG (we don't even know whether orders in this sense were given by Holland, and in case they wer, they were given BEFORE it was evident that BS was following PG).
PG was already engaged by Hood that (on paper) should have been able to manage her easily. The need at that time was to damage BS helping PoW in this task.

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3191
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Oct 09, 2015 3:57 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Paul Cadogan,

you may like it or not, but it is what they saw, what they declared and depicted ... signing for it at the First board ... and even Wake-Walker did it.

Sure it can be what you said, but that does not change the point.

I invite you to read carefully here :

Evidence from Norfolk

Norfolk was not in action. Although Hood was at a range of 20,000 yards, she was clearly visible.
Being the leading ship, Hood was in no way obscured by smoke or firing from Prince of Wales.
Hood, being the Senior Officer's ship, was closely watched; in fact, two signal ratings had their telescopes on her all the time.
From a long distance point of view, the evidence is considered reliable and this is borne out by the reasonably consistent statements of the majority of the witnesses.


Now please do not come to me telling me that a +50% distance declaration ( from 20.000 to 30.000 yards ) at the Hood Second Board using an intentionally incorrect traced map is better than what you have read here above.

More, you have now a precise reference on the map with the corrected version of " The Plot ".

That puts Norfolk on a defined position at 05.41.
Please use 9,5 sea miles from that point ( the traveled distance on the water at 30 knots sailed on 19 minutes ) and tell me where Norfolk is going to end up from Hood/PoW correct tracks on my plot-corrected version, ... not on Pinchin invented Hood track on " The Plot ". :negative:

Please do this :

I invite you and everybody else here in, .. to put Norfolk at bearing 276° from the enemy at 05.41, ... and at 319° from Suffolk on the same moment, ... and than sail toward the Holland squadron on course 220° doing the track Pinchin traced for example, assuming it is correct, ... matching the 14 sea miles at 05.50 from Hood, ... and with the turn on 270° for 5 minutes from 05.55 until 06.00, ... of course at 30 knots like the war diary is telling us she did between 05.00 and 06.00, ... and reach the position she ends up at 06.00.
Than you can tell us at what distance Norfolk will be from Hood on that moment.


It is just what I have asked to Duncan above, Sean and everybody else, ... than we can talk about what they saw from that distance.

Just like Suffolk from 04.47 until 05.41, ... now we are going to agree about the distance Norfolk was from Hood at 06.00.

I can anticipate you as I did to Duncan, ... there is NO WAY she is going to be at 15 sea miles from Hood.

After we can talk about why that happened and the " cover up ", ... and my future overall map scenario.

So the question to you is very easy : based on your data current knowledge, at what distance was Norfolk from Hood 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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Postby dunmunro » Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:36 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
... what you and Wadinga are not doing, ... is to provide your version of the facts and support it with data, maps and distances.

You are only trying to refute my work, ... but not providing your data and the reference base supporting it.

Too easy to try to demolish somebody work with those generic statements based on nothing.

We have some reliable data and some less reliable data, ...unfortunately we have also intentionally altered data to try to build up a different story, ... and with this data we have to play, ... it is not my fault nor my choice, ... it is simply the way it is.



I'm 6000 miles from the UK Archives. I can't form an accurate analysis without access to all the data.

You have a thesis that primary data was altered(that no one else, save Alberto accepts), and you use this thesis to then arbitrarily exclude anything that doesn't fit your thesis - such as Suffolk's 360d turn at 0542 and you ignore facts such as Norfolk and Suffolk not being visible to each other, when your thesis states that they should be. I accept Ellis's narrative, written from data collected at the time, as being correct ( http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09suff.htm ) subject to the "fog of war". Ellis's narrative and the 360d turn at 0542 rules out any possibility that Suffolk was in effective gun range at 0552.

Norfolk presents a different problem in that you have only released small snippets of the reports written with the data collected on board. From this it is difficult to form a solid opinion, but we can know where Norfolk wasn't by drawing a circle around Suffolk, representing the limit of Suffolk's visibility, and we can combine this with the gun ranges that PoW (and Norfolk according to the snippets you've released) recorded during the battle, to place Norfolk where she probably was, which again, I'm certain, will place her out of effective gun range.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3191
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:48 pm

hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

forget for a moment what Suffolk did after 05.41, ... it is enough now to know where she was with good tolerances and where on the same moment Norfolk was compared to her and to the enemy on bearing 276°.

Having " The Plot ", ... recognized by everybody being incorrectly realized originally, ... being corrected by me using Wadinga most favourite bearing ( visual ) at 06.20 between Norfolk and Suffolk, that magically correctly position also the Norfolk and Suffolk on the 319° bearing partially traced by Pinchin too ... and this is NOT a combination ... you do not need to travel 6000 miles to reach the archives in Kew - PRO to use a ruler and with the scale in sea miles I have placed on the map measure at what distance the Norfolk really was from Hood at 06.00, ... once the map does have the correct Hood/PoW track ... and NOT the PInchin invented one :negative: .

So I invite you, Paul, Sean, Cag and everybody else that likes to know the reality about it to take your ruler and measure it now.

Plot_redone_adjusted_bearings_097.jpg
Plot_redone_adjusted_bearings_097.jpg (79.49 KiB) Viewed 582 times


Because that is the correct distance, with due tolerances, between Norfolk and Hood at 06.00, that I have traced for your convenience with a PINK line at 06.00 and it is around 11 Sea miles.

So the call stand : the DIAGRAM B of the First board is by far more accurate than " The Plot " distance.

Then, we can start talking about everything else you like to, ... how the ship did look from Norfolk, ... what Norfolk could or should have being doing ... why a map was produced moving her more distant by tracing an invented Hood track on the plot ... why RearAdm Wake-Walker went at the Second board with an incorrect map and declaration ... etc etc etc

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 )

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: The Plot

Postby alecsandros » Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:12 am

Cag wrote:Dear All,
... would you know if this range was effective as it is close to the max range of 30,650? If we assume that an effective range (ie to be able to gauge line of fire fall and short or over etc) would be around 20,000yds?

Hello Mr. Cag,
I don't think 28900 y was effective range of shooting for Suffolk or Norfolk. Suffolk came under fire by Prinz Eugen later in the day, and she responded with fire, at gun range between 27500 to 28900 yards.

Effective range for their guns was around 15 - 17km, and maximum range at which hits were scored during the war with those types of guns was around 18km, from what I know at least...

best,

Guest

Re: The Plot

Postby Guest » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:21 am

Dear All,
Thank you again Alecsandros for all your help, therefore would a mid point of 16-17km (17,498yds -18591yds) be an acceptable effective range? I would like to apologise to Antonio I would never wish to appear to refute your work, that is not my intention.I believe that apart form a better plot map, there is also part of this work that is to try to find proof for reasons for a cover up? The only thing I would like to achieve is to show that it is not as 'cut and dried' as it is being promoted to be, the evidence on 'both' sides is (And honestly believe due to what is available always will be) circumstantial and can be easily argued against. We have two hypothetical scenarios, one Wake-Walker and others contrived evidence to make their position appear better, the other that when the large discrepancy of Suffolks position was discovered et al the distances etc were re-evaluated, wrongly perhaps but with 'no intent to decieve'. I have always agreed with the idea that the 'plot' is in error, however the Diagram B also has some errors (Inclinations, a distance of 8.5 miles or 17,000yds between Hood and BC yet a gun range of 16,500yds) and Diagram A is full of them. My only intention was try to attempt to show that the vast majority of evidence is contradictory and to attempt to clarify what was achievable, if it was achievable for what reasons it was done or not done etc, even if this would have hurt my own belief of a cover up, and to try to correlate factual evidence rather than hypothetical and perspective truth. Although, as Alberto has correctly identified, the photographic images are bad images, we can still gauge what was visible from the alleged 8.5 mile distance from PG to Hood and we can see what was visible from PoW of Hoods quarter deck which I hoped would clarify things rather than rely on more 'debateable' witness evidence. I would also agree with Alberto that if Norfolk and Suffolk were in range and had attempted a 'lucky' shot then maybe this discussion wouldn't be an ongoing one but one cannot condemn someone for cowardice and cover up simply because they did not rely on luck. The reason I have attempted the effective range timing is to see what was possible, I went into it for some proof of a yea or nea for a reason for a cover up even if it meant that it proved guilt. If this has offended in any way then I do sincerely apologise to all those that have been offended, I have tried not to denegrate anyone's views or anyone's nationality in any way as my uncle was a great influence and his ability to show no hatred was inspiring (His daughter married a German and although he knew of friends in Japanese Prisoner of war camps did not want revenge).
Thank you for the chance to contribute,
Cag.

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Plot

Postby Cag » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:31 am

Dear All,
just a note had logged in and posted but it seems that something went wrong and it went to a post that will have to be viewed by a moderator, (Most likely my error!) so it may not appear until later and would like to ask if you would 'keep your eyes open' for the late post! Sorry for the error,
Cag.


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest