The Plot

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 818
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: The Plot

Post by Byron Angel » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:33 am

From Suffolk's war diary .....

quote -

19. 0616 (B). Although the plot showed the enemy to be outside gun range, Prinz Eugen appeared at this time to be closing (now realised probably due to mirage), and at the same time Type 284 reported an echo at range 19,000 yards while trained on the Prinz Eugen.

0619 (B). Opened fire (six broadsides) using Type 284 range (initially 19,400 yards).

0623 (B). Type 284 ranges started decreasing rapidly.

0624 (B). Type 284 range 12,400 yards.
Ceased fire as there was clearly something wrong.

A large aircraft had just been sighted closing the ship from the enemy's direction, which turned across the line of fire at about six miles distant at 0624½, and it was then appreciated that this aircraft (not showing I.F.F.) was the object on which Type 284 had been ranging while trained on the enemy.

- unquote


One again, things are not always as clear and straightforward as they seem.


B

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro » Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:16 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:

@ 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
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
Antonio, your "plot" has Norfolk and Suffolk only 13.9nm apart yet they cannot see each other... :negative: Your plot cannot be correct.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4172
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: The Plot

Post by alecsandros » Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:03 pm

Guest wrote:... therefore would a mid point of 16-17km (17,498yds -18591yds) be an acceptable effective range?
Dear Mr. Cag,
I do believe 16 to 17km to be the start of the effective fighting range using Suffolk's and Norfolk's main guns. They had a maximum range of about 27-28km, so 13.5 to 15km firing would be in exactly 50% range. A 10-15% increase in firing range would still be possible to score considerable hits on an enemy.

Comparing with PRinz Eugen is not realistic, as the German heavy cruiser was larger (40% heavier in standard displacement) and was equipped with longer barelled guns, capable of reaching targets out to 34km. Thus her effective firing range was around 17km, with 10-15% over that not being out of the question.

===

However, in war one ship can rarely choose her range of engagement.
HMS Devonshire chose to attack KGM Atlantis from 15km. HMS Cornwall withdrew out of KGM Pinguin gun range, and responded with fire from 15-16km. But those are exceptions - when the 8" cruisers could dictate the range.

At River Plate, Exeter fired on the Graf Spee at a range of 19400 yards according to British records, and probably 23000yards according to German records. The average would be around 21500yards, or 19km. Exeter obtained 2 direct hits and 1 damaging near miss, all from ranges between 16 to 18km.

At Bismarck's final battle, HMS Norfolk opened fire from around 22000yards (20km), despite the storm, heavy seas, and continous fire by other ships, all making spoting fall of own shot much more difficult than in the conditions present at Denmark Strait. 14 minutes or so after opening fire, Norfolk scored a first devastating hit on Bismarck's foretop, killing and wounding a number of personell, and disabling the equipment in the tallest (and with the highest range) command position of the battleship. So she could do big damage to Bismarck, even with her 8" guns.

It is always a thing to wonder - what if Norolk and Suffolk had opened fire on Bismarck on May 24th, in effective range or not ? What would that have caused Luetjens to do ? Perhaps he would be more anxious, perhaps he would split his fire ?
Who knows.

Anyway, Biritish 8" cruisers had effective range of about 15km, but they did fire out to 20km , sometimes with good results, and they returned fire out to 25km when needed (the case of Suffolk returning fire to Prinz |Eugen).

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3692
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:59 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :
Antonio, your "plot" has Norfolk and Suffolk only 13.9nm apart yet they cannot see each other... :negative:

Your plot cannot be correct.
Very good ! I am not infallible and everything can be.

I am looking forward to see your demonstration of why I am incorrect given the available data I have used ... and what is the correct distance at 05.41 between Norfolk and Suffolk according to you ... and your evidence supporting it ... :think:

Just do it ... and show us ... :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 )

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

Re: The Plot

Post by Cag » Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:37 pm

Dear All,
I'd like to thank Alecsandros for all the info as it helps a great deal in trying to understand what was achievable.I hope that Antonio has read my earlier post and accepts the apology as regards any idea of my refuting his work. It is a difficult proposition to recreate a better plot as the origional and if I may suggest Diagram B has errors contained within as well as the numerous ones in witness testimony. As I posted earlier I believe that Antonio is doing a fair handed job and any information from other contributors, too numerous to mention, is vital in this work. I am in the process of finding more and have written for the Ellis and Wake -Walker papers as well as any signals and orders from the operation (I'm not hopeful on these as don't think they are available) and will post what is allowed as I can.
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3692
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:11 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Cag,

you wrote :
I hope that Antonio has read my earlier post and accepts the apology as regards any idea of my refuting his work.

It is a difficult proposition to recreate a better plot as the original and if I may suggest Diagram B has errors contained within as well as the numerous ones in witness testimony.

As I posted earlier I believe that Antonio is doing a fair handed job and any information from other contributors, too numerous to mention, is vital in this work.

I am in the process of finding more and have written for the Ellis and Wake -Walker papers as well as any signals and orders from the operation (I'm not hopeful on these as don't think they are available) and will post what is allowed as I can.
Thanks Cag :wink:

That is my intention, ... doing a fair handed job and any information from other contributors is KEY for me to do it, ... even the fair challenges and corrections I like, ... because for me only the final result will count, ... so no problems.

I understand all the various feeling of persons that from various reasons do not like this to be done, ... but one thing is for sure, ... differently than showed on the very poor battle maps available until my 2005 work, ... we did not know the real tracks of the warships and especially the correct Norfolk and Suffolk positioning.

Now we are going to make the best work we can do, ... so they will be placed in there as precise as we can do using the available evidence and the due tolerances.

I have taken this decision and I will reach the end of it no matter what, ... I am close to finish it now, ... and I hope to do a good enough job.


Hope that doing it will NOT offend anybody, ... since the truth should not be taken as offense, ... and will honor the heroes that died on HMS Hood and HMS PoW that day.

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

Post by Cag » Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:58 pm

Dear Antonio,
I agree with all your sentiments and I have no doubt in my mind that you will achieve your goal and hope you recieve the plaudits that you will richly deserve for the hard work that you, with help from all the other contributors, have put into the project. I am a newcomer to this forum and so have not contributed much if anything but will continue to try to be of assistance in any way.
Cag.

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

Re: The Plot

Post by Cag » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:56 am

Dear All,
In the Kriegstagebuch of BC and PG there is mention of PoW, mistaken as KG V, re-opening fire at 0621 and the shells falling outboard of the German ships, we know from the gunnery plot of PoW and Capt Leach narrative and her log that she did not open fire at this time. The only ship on the scene that was firing her main armament was the Suffolk (0619-0623) with six salvos due to errors in her type 284 ranging (On the Sunderland) the reported range was 19,400yds which if cross referenced with the BC/PG Kriegstagebuch were short? (Falling outboard of the ships) Would this then help further with corroboration of the positioning of her on the new plot? (ie would the tracing back of this help to back up Antonios work in her positioning on the new plot and help all contributors to agree that this is most likely where she was?)
Cag.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:01 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :
Antonio, your "plot" has Norfolk and Suffolk only 13.9nm apart yet they cannot see each other... :negative:

Your plot cannot be correct.
Very good ! I am not infallible and everything can be.

I am looking forward to see your demonstration of why I am incorrect given the available data I have used ... and what is the correct distance at 05.41 between Norfolk and Suffolk according to you ... and your evidence supporting it ... :think:

Just do it ... and show us ... :wink:

Bye Antonio :D
Quite honestly, I haven't had time to work on this in any detail. I expect that it means re-positioning Norfolk somewhat further east and Suffolk further west so that the total distance between them = ~18nm or more. I expect that this will place Norfolk between 26 and 30k yds from Hood and a similar distance away from Bismarck.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3692
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:48 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :
Quite honestly, I haven't had time to work on this in any detail.
I expect that it means re-positioning Norfolk somewhat further east and Suffolk further west so that the total distance between them = ~18nm or more.
I expect that this will place Norfolk between 26 and 30k yards from Hood and a similar distance away from Bismarck.
This is the problem Duncan, like always.

You cannot put those warships where you like or you think they should be.

You are forced to put them where they must be and end up being at that time, given previous positions, course and speed.

It is only by having the whole scenario depicted clearly and in scale, previous and subsequent positions of that warship that you are able to close the area and determine the warship exact position and course all the way thru.

That is the reason why Suffolk and Norfolk are/were and will be there, ... with due tolerances.

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

Post by Cag » Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:14 pm

Dear All,
I have read the Ellis biography as well as other papers inc the origional narrative (Ells 4/2) and it does make interesting reading. Without going into detail he does state that at the time of the action Norfolk was miles out of sight and 'gunrange' of the Germans and that the only thing of Hood and PoW that could be seen was funnel tops and gun flashes. Alberto is correct that he states an 18,000 yard distance but Ellis does precede this with the word 'roughly' and that they were calling Hood by radio to flank mark up to her explosion but with no reply. There is also the answer to the question of their role in the battle as it does state that it was neccessary to 'maintain their shadowing position pending the outcome of the main action' and that opening fire would have been relatively ineffective and would have confused the battleships spotting, and that Suffolk's tactical funtion was to "follow and flank mark" (But does state that due to other commitments flank marking was never practiced). Alberto is correct again as Ellis does wonder whether relying on the spin of lady luck may have helped but then I do think this is a regret that everyone involved shared in the loss of the pride of the fleet and more of a what if rather than it was our orders to. The narrative does state that at 0542 and 0629 Suffolk turned and circled away from what they thought was an approaching enemy due to mirage. It also states in a pencil written note that the origional automated plot was retained by Ellis. Hope this helps,
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Plot

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:38 pm

@Cag:
Hi Mr.Cag,
thanks for confirming what I posted regarding Capt.Ellis autobiography.
Cag wrote: "It also states in a pencil written note that the original automated plot was retained by Ellis"
This is intriguing and it's why I had suggested to everybody not to read only the text of the autobiography (chapter 19), but also to request a copy of the "official reports" that Ellis was having in mind writing the book and that he left to the Churchill Archives.

In the copy of the first page of his official report (the one submitted to Wake-Walker and included in ADM 199-1187) there is not such an annotation referred to the "Tactical Plot" ..... :think:

Just to be 100% precise, the sentence added by Capt.Ellis in pencil is:
"Original automatic-plotting-table sheets are in my possession".
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)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Plot

Post by wadinga » Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:42 pm

Hello All,

I'm looking at Antonio's latest plan from the 9th and I have to agree that since the only real, measured bearing we have between Norfolk and Suffolk is at 06:20 and because the mysterious D/6 bearing is only a few degrees different they do seem to align quite well. However since they tell us nothing about distance, except that the individual tracks reflect the distance travelled NE-SW during the time quite well, this adds little. Norfolk and Suffolk can be moved apart SE and NW quite a bit without affecting it at all. The 350 degree diagonal brace has no provenance. It doesn't even get a D number!

What didn't happen at 06:20 is that Norfolk didn't cross Rowell's track of PoW. We established over a year ago, at the end of August 2014 that PoW formed up 1.5 miles astern of Norfolk at 06:34 (PoW's log) and Norfolk's track and PoW's track should be matched together to reflect this. Then Norfolk would cross PoW's track at or after 06:26. I notice that the southern portion of Norfolk's track is "missing" from the latest 9th plot (conveniently), which makes the relationship between the tracks as represented this time hard to evaluate, and hides the relative movement applied to make Antonio's Pink line equal the "required value" of 11 miles. Assuming Norfolk were travelling at near 30 knots this 6 minute shift of the crossing point would put Norfolk 3 miles or 6000 yds further NE. Thus increasing the distance to Hood to about 14ish miles at 06:00. :wink:

Let's see those two tracks placed correctly.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3692
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:29 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

on my map you are referencing nothing can be moved " SE and NW ".

Probably you still miss to realize that having vertical, horizontal and diagonal bearings matching, the Suffolk and Norfolk track lines are fixed with minimum tolerances now.

Now what is important is to have fixed once for good the 05.41 positions, and nothing will move them from there, now that we have proved where Suffolk really was at 05.41, her bearing with Norfolk at 05.41 determine both positions clearly.

Norfolk at 05.50 must be at 14 sea miles from BC1 with Hood on bearing 220°, referencing her own war diary input.
This, with the 05.41 previous position and her speed and course after will determine her position at 06.00, and it will be 11 sea miles, no doubts ... just forget your 14 sea miles evaluation based on no real evidence.

After we can manage the 06.20 onward tracks, ... now that the upper part is determined for Norfolk, ..and soon also for Suffolk until 06.00.

Do you want to have e final confirmation : measure on a real map the distance and bearing between 04.47 and 05.22 Suffolk intercepted radio messages geographical positions and you will see that my work is simply .... close to be perfect !

And I did my work before that control ... which is making me particularly proud about it 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
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: The Plot

Post by paulcadogan » Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:03 am

Hi Antonio,

I printed your chart and measured the distances based on the scale you provided. While you DO have Norfolk at 11 nm from Hood's position at 0600, at 0550 I am measuring approx 12 - 12.5 nm not the 14 signaled by Norfolk which you also say it must be (the track is obscured a bit by your bearing line). Also at 0541 I measure about 13 nm from Norfolk to Bismarck not the 16 signaled by Norfolk.

Then you have the measurement from PoW to Bismarck at 0537 in PoW's sighting report estimation of 17 nm which on your map measures about 18.5 (when I project Bismarck's track backwards).

You have approx 13.5 nm from Norfolk to Suffolk at 0541 (yet they could not in fact see each other then, but Norfolk could see Bismarck clearly at about the same range on your chart) and 16 nm between them at 0620 (when Norfolk picked up gun flashes only) - where do these ranges come from?

Then there's Suffolk to Bismarck at 0600 which measures 14.5 nm (pretty close to Tovey's 15!!)

I don't think I'm measuring wrong since I do get your 11 nm from Norfolk to Hood at 0600.

Just asking...... :?:

(Could someone else try these measurements?)
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

Post Reply