The Plot

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Northcape,

if you want to evaluate my statements, ... first of all you have to take them entirely, ... not partially like you did above.

I wrote to Cag :
it is surely possible that in order to avoid being hit the Bismarck was making course alterations toward PoW, ... but not that she sailed for a long period of time on course 212° ... while Prinz Eugen was on course 220°ahead of her.

Since we miss those details I am assuming for Bismarck a straight course 220° behind Prinz Eugen until 06.03, ... which in my personal opinion is by far the most precise track reproduction we have so far.
If you read it again maybe you will be able to realize what I stated and its meaning.

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 )
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: The Plot

Post by Byron Angel »

It was standard doctrine in the German HSF of WW1 that an individual ship, when straddled or hit, would zig-zag or otherwise make minor temporary course deviations (perhaps +/- one point) in order to throw off the opponent's firing solution. Such evasions would almost certainly have not altered the base course, but would have produced a minor transient effect upon timing and positioning within a formation.

B
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Plot

Post by Cag »

Dear All,
Hi Herr Nilsson, I think I probably didn't explain myself fully, sorry about that. I understand your point and agree that the PoW gunnery was searching for range (Maybe due to the trouble with spray making initial rangefinding difficult, a number of course changes by BCS, and also somewhat due to lack of gunnery exercises carried out and shown in her January-May logs) you're correct that the 'staddle' points are different taking into account the spreads used, courses etc, and that is why I suggested the possibility of movements of BC to try to put off the aim of PoW gunners, but unfortunately we do not know for sure (But it does make sense?).
In the case of the Pinchin map would it be useful to try to work out the reasons for Pinchin's positioning of Suffolk (We know that Suffolk herself amended her plot position whilst at sea back to a timed position with an initial error of approx 290 degrees 20.5nm if I remember correctly) and if it may help to project her course after 0700 to the point where this was done to see how this matches the 'Plot'? (But we do know that the plot contains not unexpected errors)
Cag.
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Plot

Post by Cag »

Dear All,
Just a further thought on the 'plot', had a quick look at my old tracing paper drawings, quite old and faded pencil now, but one thing I had noted was the time differences on the three British ships, (Norfolk reported Hood explosion at 0602 PoW at 0600 and Suffolk at 0559) and if this is factored in then the 0550 bearing of Norfolk would correlate to 0548 on the PoW track (2 minute difference between Norfolk and PoW) and the 0553 bearing from Suffolk to observation of BCS fire would correlate to 0552 on the PoW track (1 minute difference between Suffolk and PoW) for example, would this affect anything or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Cag.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro »

Cag wrote:Dear All,
Just a further thought on the 'plot', had a quick look at my old tracing paper drawings, quite old and faded pencil now, but one thing I had noted was the time differences on the three British ships, (Norfolk reported Hood explosion at 0602 PoW at 0600 and Suffolk at 0559) and if this is factored in then the 0550 bearing of Norfolk would correlate to 0548 on the PoW track (2 minute difference between Norfolk and PoW) and the 0553 bearing from Suffolk to observation of BCS fire would correlate to 0552 on the PoW track (1 minute difference between Suffolk and PoW) for example, would this affect anything or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Cag.

It is easy to measure the effect of a one to two minute timing difference - it is another reason why the bearings should have a large error bar beside them.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Plot

Post by wadinga »

Hi Marc,

I can understand why Antonio is keen to keep Norfolk's track as far to the NW as possible, but I see on your map of Oct 16 you show Norfolk not ahead of PoW as described in the Ship's Log, but a mile or so closer to the enemy. PoW's log is quite precise on this as we established before, the damaged battleship takes station 1.5 miles astern of the new flagship. Not on the beam, not on the quarter. Line astern. Until ordered to a new station.

We have a clear relationship between two independent vessel tracks. Alberto has bemoaned the fact this relationship wasn't put before the Enquiry and if it had been germane to the objective I expect it would have been used. But near enough was good enough so the BCF track observed from Norfolk's bridge was used instead, not something invented for bizarre arcane purposes. If the intention had been to mislead, Pinchin would have provided one clear misleading answer and not depicted PoW in two locations indicating the confusion prevailing at the time.

If we want to know how far Norfolk is from Bismarck at 06:00 we can only use McMullen guesstimates of how far the gun range was, from an extremely flawed fire control solution, plus the additional distance to Norfolk, "fine on her quarter". Whatever that range was, we need to add an additional 2,000yds as we move Norfolk SE to match this clear description.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Plot

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Wadinga wrote:"PoW's log is quite precise on this as we established before, the damaged battleship takes station 1.5 miles astern of the new flagship."
Hi Sean,
I do accept this as an evidence. I'm not refuting the facts when they are acceptable and not contradictory, as someone else does..... :wink:

A real pity that we don't have EVEN the tactical plots of Norfolk in addition to those of Suffolk, the ones shamefully never attached to the "official reports"...... :think:

However, it looks like, starting form 6:30 backwards, you think that Norfolk will end to an increased distance from enemy, just using Pinchin track as drawn on "The Plot".

Unfortunately, you have to keep in mind that Pinchin track shape is incorrect for ALL ships (including Suffolk, as we recently discovered) and it does NOT even respect the speed traveled in water......

I'm still waiting to see your own alternative battle map, with positions and distances of both cruisers at 5:41 and at 6:00 (not just words like "fine on her quarter" or "2000 yards" to be added: to what ? ).

Bye, Alberto


P.S.
you wrote: "we can only use McMullen guesstimates of how far the gun range was, from an extremely flawed fire control solution"
The "flawed" fire control solution straddled hitting the enemy 3 times...... Not such a bad performance, and a more than reliable distance estimation, as it almost perfectly matches PG GO (Jasper): 170 and 140 hectometers distance at 5:59 and 6:02.
Both Jasper and McMullen were straddling, hitting and in agreement in their estimated distance from enemy. :D
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:40 am, edited 8 times in total.
"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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Due to very sad personal reasons I will be able to answer only sporadically the next couple of days. :(

Sean, in PoW's log there is the passage: "06:34 a/c 250° Norfolk ahead 1.5' .Enemy ahead bg 200 [sic] approx." PoW is still altering course from "Co 300°" via "a/c 263°" to "a/c 250°". When I created my map I tried to place Norfolk about 1.5 to 2 miles from PoW with Bismarck and Norfolk ahead (almost in line) during PoW's turn. I assumed Bismarck in 280° from PoW, because the writer seems to write an 8 like to circles upon each other. I also tried to place PoW not so far away from her 06:14 position given in the plot. There is a tolerance of very few degrees in this regard and 1 or 2 minutes timing difference make a lot of difference, because PoW moves from right to left ahead of Norfolk. My solution is certainly a compromise, but I think it's not a bad one. I think I didn't forget any bearing and it also works from 05:20 to 07:08. In Antonio's map the 05:50 bearing is missing completly and the distance between PoW and Norfolk isn't 1.5 but rather 5 miles. IMHO the measuring error is growing when the object is more distant. That's why I trust the 1.5 miles more than the salvo plot...at least if the salvo plot means a distance of 5 miles instead of 1.5 miles.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Her Nilsson,

first we all hope that your temporary absence from here is NOT due to anything serious Marc, we are all close to you in any case.

Now let’s go into the fun of this, our researches on this battle.

It is not my map that is missing the 05.50 correct bearing, the one you are referring to Marc, it is “ The Plot “ being corrected at least for the majority of the known bearings and the overall battlefield dimensions, but still with Pinchin tracks on it and we all should have realized, as Alberto properly highlighted above, that we should not take them for granted at this point, given what we have realized so far about them.

In fact, as you can read, written by me on top of them, the work still needs all the tracks to be revisited and corrected. Including of course the Norfolk one at 05.50, … and much, much more than that.

I left the analysis at 05.41 with the Norfolk to Suffolk ( 319° ) and Bismarck ( 276° from Norfolk ) track correlation at that point.

I have read above you wrote you are taking assumptions, tolerance, and compromise ( not bad one’s ).

Well I think you are on the right path now, since we cannot pretend perfection at 100 yards or meters from this work, and as you properly wrote we have to accept the less/minor evident error when we need to define which one of 2 possibilities we have is the correct one.

Talking about Norfolk track and position, once we have accepted her position at 05.41, we do not only need to respect the 05.50 ( or 05.48 according to Cag good point above about it ) distance of 14 sea miles from Hood on bearing 220° from her.
But we need to keep into account her Gunnery data from Ltnt Johnston, I mean the 30.400 yards at open fire ( 05.52 and 30 secs ) with BS on 275° bearing and PG on 272° bearing, and 16 minutes after 27.200 yards at cease fire ( 06.09 ).
Plus in the middle the fact that she was having the enemy on bearing 270° at 06.00 following Pinchin 05.55 until 06.00 track.
In conclusion of the battle, at 06.12 when PG ceased also the A/A fire, the Norfolk was having again the enemy on bearing 272°. Of course we need to keep into account all the first board declaration too about the distances at 06.00 between Norfolk and Hood, and the Diagram B of the Hood First board distance.

Regarding Suffolk we are left at 05.41 with the enemy at around 10 sea miles, reached after my almost perfect evaluation of her course and track from 04.47 until 05.22.
While Pinchin shows the circle north at 05.42, Capt Ellis autobiography is telling us he kept that distance until the open fire ( 05.52 and 30 seconds ??? ), and consequently we should realize from his words that he did it after that point, just as it seems to be confirmed also by Suffolk war diary entry which is telling us that the enemy appeared to be turning back at 05.47, so that turn occurred surely after that point in time on Suffolk, confirming Capt Ellis event second “ autobiography “ version rather than Capt Ellis report first “ official “ version and Pinchin track.

As we can see, a lot of work still to be done and the assumptions, tolerances and compromise needed will be many for sure.

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: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Plot

Post by Cag »

Hi All,
Dear Herr Nilsson sorry to hear of your problems I do sincerely hope that it is not too serious but if so I do hope things are better soon and my best wishes are with you.
I have had a look at my old drawings and managed to line up the Norfolk bearings of 0550/0548 on PoW together with the Norfolk's time adjusted 0553/0551 bearing on BC and PoW's track 0553 opening fire bearings on BC which seem to match up (Taking into account the 1000 yard PoW overshoot). The Suffolk's adjusted 0553/0552 sights on BCS opening fire together with the approx time adjusted D/F bearings that seem to match too. I realise that this is very very approximate but PoW seems to come astern of Norfolk at 0634 which also adds up, a quick number of repeated measurements to double check (Still very inaccurate I know!) seems to suggest that Norfolk to PoW at 0550 was approx 28,000yds and at 0600 approx 24,000yds (Plus the 900yds or so from PoW to Hood?). And the Suffolk was approx 35,000yds from Norfolk at 0550/0547 and approx 49,500yds from PoW at 0553/0552 and 42,000yds at 0600/0559.
I realise that this is incredibly rough and agree with dunmonroe about +/- on bearings but using only the British estimates to British ships things do seem to start to match. I am 100% sure that Antonio is achieving much much better results as well as adding BC and PG into the mix and agree that the Pinchin/PoW tracks can only be used as a rough estimate of movements rather than actual positions. Hope this helps,
Cag.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro »

CAG, your estimates seem pretty good, and the distance from Suffolk and Norfolk is a good fit with available data.

What's your estimate of ranges from Suffolk/Norfolk to Bismarck/PE?
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Plot

Post by Cag »

Hi All,
Thank you Dunmonroe I would suggest any accuracy is more luck than management! Haven't looked at BC track yet as I wanted to see how British bits and pieces did or did not fit together and think there are still things that need to be checked. Plus I'm no expert at this and I'm sure yourself, Alecsandros, Herr Nilsson, Wadinga, Alberto, Antonio, Mr Cardogan, Mr Raven and Mr Jurens are much more qualified and competant to work this out with more accuracy. I will however try to fit in PG track and work BC from that if only for my own interest and if it welps will of course post results if anyone needs em!
Thank you and all contributors again for kind posts,
Cag.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Cag,

I applaud you for your trials and results :clap: :clap: :clap:

I think that now you, like everybody else really interested on realizing how things really were and occurred, are putting yourself in condition to understand the whole scenario.

In fact, it is only by playing with the data, the bearings and the distances on a real map that one understands the reality like you are doing now.

The first result will be to determine the battlefield real dimensions we are talking about, the area defined by the various warships involved run tracks at various stages.

After you will be able to fine tune all the tracks and the distances, the single bearings, than you can work out every single position detail based on the available information.

By reading your evaluation as well as Duncan comments, I think that your are on the right path like Marc ( Herr Nilsson ).

Any help I can provide you, just feel free to ask.

You can use the German warship tracks from my 2005 map, ... :wink:

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrai ... trait2.htm

The German warships track was made based on Prinz Eugen battle map :

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


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: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Plot

Post by Cag »

Hi All

I'm not sure if this is the right subject to post this in as I have a question as regards the battle rather than the approach of the 23rd etc.

On the Hood association website they do give a rough (for understandable reasons) wreck site position for Hood. This position is 632200N 0321700W. This appears to be a decimal or GPS position, is that correct?

Would this therefore need to be converted to be able to be plotted on a chart? If so would this equate to a rough position of 63° 13' 12"N 32° 10' 12"W?

Thanks in advance for any help
Best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Plot

Post by wadinga »

Hi Cag,

Yes this site https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/dms-decimal has a converter which confirms this.

I am correlating the radio positions from Duncan's Admiralty sheet with the positions recorded on PoW's action plot :D

All the best

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