The Plot

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga & Dunmunro,


Both the strategical plot as well as the narrative have been altered/modified, ... but not entirely, ... just where it was needed for the " Cover Up ", ... and I suspect they did some alteration also on the war diary.

Right. Just take any data that doesn't fit your theory and throw it into the conspiracy file...

Winklareth was content with just reversing the photos.

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Antonio Bonomi:

Hi Antonio,
I'm astonished by the perfection of all available evidences in your map below and in that from your post on September 20 at 1pm.

0447_0456_01.jpg (55.92 KiB) Viewed 690 times

Have you tried to determine what Suffolk did AFTER 5:41, and especially after 5:;52 ? Being in the perfect position for flank-mark, I doubt Ellis wanted to get closer to BS (even if the battleship was well busy against CS1). Have you evaluated the distance of Suffolk from the enemy at 6:00 and his course ?

Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

it is a pity to see a person with your competence and knowledge writing the above statement, to try to hold on to a side taken position ... that cannot be defended any longer.

I have the huge advantage compared to you ... that I have no side to protect or defend, ... I just want the truth here.

Please remain on the evidence, ... and try to justify what they did if you can, ... like the Pinchin 17 sea miles distance at 05.41 for example, ... or the invention of the " mirage effect " and the turn back of Suffolk at 05.42, in opposition to Capt Ellis own autobiography telling us he was closing in at 18.000 yards for the due flank marking and it was at firing range but he did not ordered to open fire .

Please, put your version of the facts in a scale map like I did , ... and show it to us.

From_430_until_0541_DS_02.jpg (70.12 KiB) Viewed 690 times

I like you to show us now how the Suffolk was sailing from 04.47 until 05.41 according to you, ... so we can compare my version of the facts with yours.

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

The Germans were sailing 28 knots.

[dunmunro]

Please remain on the evidence, ... and try to justify what they did if you can, ... like the Pinchin 17 sea miles distance at 05.41 for example, ... or the invention of the " mirage effect " and the turn back of Suffolk at 05.42, in opposition to Capt Ellis own autobiography telling us he was closing in at 18.000 yards for the due flank marking and it was at firing range but he did not ordered to open fire .

Please, put your version of the facts in a scale map like I did , ... and show it to us.

Antonio, I don't doubt that errors were made and that distance estimates might have been in error, but I cannot accept that parts of the strategic plot, narrative and war diary were falsified. I must either accept the validity of all of a document (with the understanding that unintentional errors might be contained therein), or reject it entirely. If you want to use the strategic plot, then you must use all of it and fit your history around the facts as stated. You must accept primary documents, created with data recorded during the events, and use this data in preference to memoirs written (in Ellis's case, on good authority, via contact with the Churchill Archives) more than 30 years after the events of May 1941.

It's impossible to discuss an event, when the primary sources of information about that event, are not accepted as valid.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

I am glad that now I have you all back as a value add provider ... with competent challenges and opinions ... hopefully with no side taken approach any longer ... because I need you ... like in the past ... so the work final result will be much better ...

@ Herr Nilsson,

I see your point and knowing you I know that if you write something like that you have an evidence supporting you.

I briefly looked at the Prinz Eugen war diary, ... and at the Bismarck -reconstructed war diary and I have found only the 27 knots input at 00.21 ... than no changes ... confirmed by Prinz Eugen machinery log here in :

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrai ... hinery.htm

Schmalenbach is confirming it as well on his report, at 04.00 he confirms 27 knots ...

So the question to you is now : where did you get the 28 knots please ?

@ Dunmunro,

I know it is very hard to accept it ... and be sure that it was NOT easy for me as well to realize it, ... nor it is a pleasure to see it materializing and being proven by a key participants autobiography.

But I am looking for the truth so I have to keep in account all documents available and judge, ... hopefully wisely, ... what is correct and what is wrong ... and it is not going to be an easy work.

Once demonstrated that documents have been altered intentionally, ... and we do have this evidence now, ... one must try to realize why and in which way they did it.

This is the work I am doing now, ... double checking everything and not taking anymore for granted anything.

The difference now is that I do not have to keep in account as granted some declarations of Capt Ellis like the 05.20 distanec of 15 sea miles, the " Mirage effect " and the turn back to north for several minutes.

This is changing the whole battle scenario.

In addition now ALL the documents are subject to scrutiny, ... like the Norfolk track on " The Plot " ... etc etc etc

Any competent help with value add is welcome ... like always ... but please with open mind and no side taken.

@ Alberto,

do not worry, ... I am working on this as well ... now trying to realize when the track and bearings of Suffolk started being correct again ... compared to the enemy.

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

@ Herr Nilsson,

I see your point and knowing you I know that if you write something like that you have an evidence supporting you.

I briefly looked at the Prinz Eugen war diary, ... and at the Bismarck -reconstructed war diary and I have found only the 27 knots input at 00.21 ... than no changes ... confirmed by Prinz Eugen machinery log here in :

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrai ... hinery.htm

Schmalenbach is confirming it as well on his report at 04.00 ...

So the question to you is now : where did you get the 28 knots please ?

From PGs war diary. PG made revolutions for 27 knots to move as fast as Bismarck making revolutions for 28 knots. According Brinkmann Bismarck "attained the correct speed as determined by position fixes". That means the speed of the Germans was 28 knots.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I see your point, ... and I will keep it into consideration of course, ... thanks.

In any case it is not going to be a great difference ... because in an hour the difference will be 1 sea miles more or less at the most, ... and the same tolerances are going to be used also for the British warships of course.

Bill Jurens wisely wrote me that I need to slow down the speed of the warships during the turns as well, ... of course ... and in this case the Germans made 2 turns from 220 to 170 and back to 220.

I hope you will agree that we will be in any case far away from the 17 sea miles distance Pinchin placed Suffolk from the German warships at 05.41 on " The Plot ".

At the end and once again the bearings are much more important than the distances and the speed, ... and subject to less errors, ... as I learned myself making those works.

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

You're welcome. Maybe you should keep the correct times into considerations as well.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

open to any correction on timing as well as on anything else ... the goal is to make the work as precise as we can ... because I doubt that after me/us ... anybody will do it again ...

So please ... corrections and suggestions are more than welcome ...

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

If you consider Busch a reliable source (I do not) you should not only take the bearings, but also the time.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I know what you mean :

As we are now informed, the Commander had requested, at 04.30 ( DZT = 05.30 battle time ) , that a semaphore signal be made to the chief of staff of the fleet:

“Commander to Chief: one each smoke trail, true bearings 96 and 157 degrees.

True bearing 15 degrees an additional mast. Distance 17,600 meters.” [rechtweisend = true bearing]

Surely the bearings are perfectly aligned with the 3 British ones at timing around 05:40-41, ... simultaneously.

I see that F.O. Busch recorded a 10 minutes earlier time, ... and I will consider it as well.

If you go on my map and measure the bearings at 05.30, you will NOT see a big difference, compared with the 05.41 ones ...

For me F.O. Busch is not better nor worst than anybody else here .... especially after the recent findings, ... and I have to take it for what provides as good inputs ... than I know he also failed too sometimes.

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

If you go on my map and measure the bearings at 05.30, you will NOT see a big difference, compared with the 05.41 ones ...

Maybe, maybe not. I'm curious about your revised drawing.

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

0447B/24.5. Von k3g = Suffolk an mta = Scapa. P
My 0321B. Enemy bear 184º 15 miles, course 220º. My position is 64º 10' north 30º 40' west X.
0522B/24.5. Von k3g = Suffolk an mta = Scapa. P
My 0456B. No change, my position is 63º 55' north 30º 55' west X ..

Does the Suffolk Deck Log confirm these? I have been trying to find the page you posted, (to get the speed) but I can't. Yet

I presume you have decided

*Not 184° as incorrectly given in Suffolk's 0447.

as included in the Narrative is the start of the lying Or your diagram would use the reciprocal of 186 degrees which given the courses steered would put Suffolk further astern.

I notice the strategical map (even at that scale) shows the speed loss in Suffolk's 50 degree turn, which is why the second range bearing pair drawn on it are longer than the 04:47. Just as an experienced navigator would expect to lose distance if he did a 50 degree turn. Off the edge of the thumbnail is 05:22 and if it shows the same range and bearing it would indicate that is when the lying started, or not. I really do need to see those two maps in their entirety.

With ranges estimated at 30,000 yds it is clear Ellis has been resting the type 284 since the visibility became exceptional, and visual track could be kept.

To me it is obvious where Ellis' casual recollection of 18,000 yds comes from- the erroneous radar range when Suffolk opened fire, against the Sunderland. With only two pages to describe the action in an autobiography of an entire life, why would the circling be included? There are Suffolk witnesses that remember the action happening off the port quarter and turning quite a lot just the impression you would get if your ship had done a 360 degree turn.

So your map needs redrawing.

I'm astonished by the perfection of all available evidences

So am I. Accepting Ellis' estimate of 15 miles from Bismarck, and his bearings to draw a Suffolk track, but leaving out the circle, so as to derive a Suffolk position at 05:41 only 14 miles from Norfolk? 14 miles apart in exceptional visibility and they can't even see each other. This chart is severely in error and all because you need to prove Busch's reference to a "mast", when everybody else on board knows it is a heavy cruiser with three funnels. Marc is right to question reliability of this identification.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Cag
Hi Mr.Cag,
I just see now your last 3 posts that were inserted in this "hot" discussion at a later time compared with the moment when you have submitted them. I would dare to suggest you (as Dunmunro already proposed) that you could become a member of this forum to be able to post in real time.....


First of all,
thanks for your nice words to me for having shared some info from Ellis autobiography. I'm really sorry I can't post the document or parts of it, but I have posted some "short" sentences from Ellis himself between quotes in this very thread and in the "Cover-Up Synopsis" Thread.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799&start=15
I can guarantee that I'm available to answer any question and to post other details of Ellis 31 interesting pages of the chapter on "The Bismarck Episode" (where unfortunately only few paragraphs are dedicated to the battle itself while much more space is given to the shadowing and to the subsequent events until the definitive loss of contact.....) if someone is interested.


Regarding the "case":

you wrote: "I'm afraid that any idea of the theory now being proven is a little premature, In a mass of inaccuracy another inaccuracy just means another inaccuracy. .........but believe that for the moment the case is still 'not proven'"

I agree with you that there is not a "sure proof" (and I'm afraid that we will never have one). However the clues that point to confirm the case are now so many that it becomes difficult for me (perhaps I'm too suspicious, who knows.....) to believe they are all "innocent errors", especially when they go all in the same directions: to enlarge the battlefield for Norfolk and Suffolk and to justify the PoW disengagement, increasing its time and magnifying the damages sustained).

The key point here is to reconstruct a reliable battle map as Antonio Bonomi has tried to do. We are still debating whether this battle map can be considered good or not, but, up to now, I have not yet seen anything comparable with his work as a valid alternative.

Just to demonstrate how far he is compared to the ones criticizing his work, someone is still saying that the good battle map is the "Plot" by Pinchin, just replacing the ridiculous track of Hood with the good one and not realizing that even doing so (as Pinchin could have done with the information available at that time), this map will not cope with even half of the evidences that Antonio's map includes (both sides bearings, known (from both sides) distances, witnesses, etc.). The only thing the "detractors" have been able to do up to now, is to try to underline the one or two pieces of information that does not fit (yet) in Antonio's reconstruction, focusing on almost irrelevant details, but they have been, until now, totally unable to produce a complete map (including all 6 ships involved) reflecting with their own version of facts. Someone else is just invoking the "fog of war" to avoid to try an exercise like this, as such an attempt will of course expose who is trying to do so to the same level of scrutiny he is showing for Antonio's reconstruction.....

In the absence of an alternative and credible (not Pinchin's like....) map, I think the case can be "judged" without a sure proof, with overwhelming circumstantial evidences: in fact, if the map of Antonio is correct, there was no alternative but a cover-up to avoid an inquiry and to decorate the involved officers.

Bye, Alberto