The Plot

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

Ok, I see now you need the incorrect geographical positioning of them both, ... plus the demonstration that it is surely not the Suffolk radio incorrect position they could have traced themselves on the Norfolk and placed on it at 05.41.

Here you can measure the position of Norfolk and Suffolk you like so much to know on Norfolk original map.

I left aside also " The Plot " so you can compare them and see the differences.

Comparison_Pinchin_ThePlot_with_Original_Norfolk_track.jpg (66.44 KiB) Viewed 2498 times

I just feel more than satisfied with the 318° bearing on it ... since the 2 geographical positions are incorrect anyhow, ... and also not so precise given the original map scale, ... so I do not even care to read them precisely, ... but if you like it, ... do it.

And here the presumed position that could have been plotted on Norfolk if they followed Suffolk geographical radio transmitted position.

0541_Norfolk_Suffolk_geo_positions.jpg (62.07 KiB) Viewed 2498 times

As you can easily see, that Suffolk position on the Norfolk original map at 05.41 does not have anything to do with a presumed calculated position on the Norfolk plotting table taken from the Suffolk radio communication at 05.22 and continued until 05.42 given Suffolk course and speed.

Surely it was Norfolk R.D/F bearing of Suffolk at 05.41 plotted on the original map, ... and " partially " traced by Pinchin too as D/6 on " The Plot ", ... known for being 318°.

Notice that all this is an useless exercise, since all geographical positions are incorrect anyhow, ... and only their relative bearing are important as stated, ... so the 318° is the only data that count ...

Elementary, ... just elementary ...

Bye Antonio

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

so finally we are getting close to an agreement here Marc, ... as you can read we have Sean confirmation of my statement, ... as it cannot have been any different ...

In fact Wadinga wrote :

... W-W and his brothers did not have access to when they guessed Hood was ten miles away.
Then they corrected themselves because they realized they guessed wrong the first time.

As you can see we are finally moving forward here, ... we have realized that RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker and his " brothers " guessed Hood was ten miles away the first time.

This was of course what happened on May 31st, 1941 at the Hood First board on Inquiry, just as it was written, sketched and signed at first hand few days after the event.

Now according to Sean : Then they corrected themselves because they realized they guessed wrong the first time.

And this is my point too, ... some of them after changed their first hand declarations, ... using " The Plot " ... this is what happened after.

So, finally we should have the first milestone agreed I hope.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

You are a master of the circular argument

An imaginary radio bearing of 318 is invented and somehow generates a position on the Norfolk map (even though you need two lines of position to make a position). Then you draw a line through the two cruiser's positions and say, hey presto, that's 318 degrees, which just happens to be the same bearing drawn on Pinchin's Plot two months later. Therefore that's all proved then........

Except it isn't because you still haven't explained where Suffolk's position came from in the first place. A bearing is not a position.

Here you can measure the position of Norfolk and Suffolk you like so much to know on Norfolk original map.

No I can't because there are no lats and longs. Where do your scale bars come from? How are they created and sized?

Thanks for repeating the other plot but we did that back on page 26. I wonder when W-W realised how far out Suffolk's navigation was?

and also not so precise given the original map scale,

This stylised, imprecise, small scale map is what you were suggesting earlier todaygave a better rendition of Norfolk's course than Pinchin's Plot. ie

But in this case we have not a straight line on the Norfolk original track map over simplifying the real track.
We have 220°->270°->220° on " The Plot "by Pinchin (Option 1), and 215°->250°->215° on the original track ( option 2).

Are there any other "Suffolk triangles" on those parts of Norfolk's original map we are not allowed to see? You showed us a bit more including a Norfolk 05:00 position but nothing else appeared for Suffolk. which is surprising considering.......

Reports.- Made reports at 0447, 0456, 0522, 0533 and 0538 during the above phase.

All the best

wadinga

[Herr Nilsson]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you may call it cherry picking, ... I call it analysis of 2 available data in order to realize which one of the 2 is correct, ... especially if one was done at time of action ... and the other one was done for a " special reason " months after ...

Well it's your reputation that will be/is damaged not mine.

No Marc, the first account by 4 Norfolk Officers was released on May 31st, 1941 and was 20.000 yards (10 sea miles).
The 15 sea miles from bridge used to make " The Plot " is dated August 12th, 1941, when WW declared 30.000 yards.

That means you call Pinchin a liar.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

Marc, my reputation cannot be impacted in any negative way by having made clear to the whole world that 06.13 for PoW retreat was an incorrect statement, since it was confirmed by the Royal Navy Admiralty in writing on Battle Summary Nr 5.

Similarly it cannot be impacted negatively by having demonstrated that " the Plot " is an incorrect document and it was used by RearAdm Wake-Walker to change his first hand deposition on May 31st, 1941 of 10 sea miles to his second guessed deposition on August 12th, 1941 of 15 sea miles, since all this is written on the Hood board of inquiry reports.

Those are the irrefutable facts.

Anyway, now you know what was Wake-Walker first hand account, just the 10 sea miles that comes out of " The Plot " once corrected with the original Rowell tracks.

You can call Pinchin the way you like it to, ... not a problem for me, ... it was his initiative to write that ranges were coming from someone else ( Bridge ) and not from him,... but he traced them realizing an incorrect map anyway.

On this all occurrence, ... way too many persons released incorrect statements ... just read Wake-Walker reports and Adm Tovey dispatches and you will have a good example of it ... not to mention Capt Leach messages and final report which is a masterpiece of progressive declaration of a warship inefficiency ... from the number of guns really working ... to the training status of his crew and his confidence on them ...


@ Wadinga,

here it is your grid position ... just perfectly on top of " The Plot " D/6 bearing as you may realize.

63° 49' North and 31° 30' West

Comparison_Pinchin_ThePlot_with_Original_Norfolk_track_01.jpg (44.47 KiB) Viewed 2464 times

In BLUE you have the 2 plotted position taken from Norfolk original map, which are :

63° 49' North and 31° 30' West for Suffolk on bearing 318° from Norfolk
and
63° 39' North and 31° 10' West for Norfolk reference her own radio enemy report position


In RED you have the incorrect plotted position of Suffolk on “ The Plot “ with bearing 330° :

63° 55' North and 31° 30' West for Suffolk

I am sure you will realize now that the 05.41 position on the Norfolk original map above showed, is very close with the position declared by Capt Ellis at 05.42 on his report when he realized that he needed to move 280° his Suffolk estimated position.

For more details about it, please go back on September 9-10 post's on this same thread.

This way you will realize once again what has been done also by Pinchin on " The Plot " too ...

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

Anyway, now you know what was Wake-Walker first hand account, just the 10 sea miles that comes out of " The Plot " once corrected with the original Rowell tracks.

You can call Pinchin the way you like it to, ... not a problem for me, ... it was his initiative to write that ranges were coming from someone else ( Bridge ) and not from him,... but he traced them realizing an incorrect map anyway.

On this all occurrence, ... way too many persons released incorrect statements ... just read Wake-Walker reports and Adm Tovey dispatches and you will have a good example of it ...

Just another example of cherry picking.

Marc, my reputation cannot be impacted in any negative way by having made clear to the whole world that 06.13 for PoW retreat was an incorrect statement, since it was confirmed by the Royal Navy Admiralty in writing on Battle Summary Nr 5.

Similarly it cannot be impacted negatively by having demonstrated that " the Plot " is an incorrect document and it was used by RearAdm Wake-Walker to change his first hand deposition on May 31st, 1941 of 10 sea miles to his second guessed deposition on August 12th, 1941 of 15 sea miles, since all this is written on the Hood board of inquiry reports.

Those are the irrefutable facts.

We will see.

You once wrote:

Than it all depends on the knowledge of who is making the due alterations.

No Antonio, it doesn't depend on the knowledge, but also the intention. You're not neutral, you're biased. That's sad, but true. And if you disagree (and you will), than my defintition of "neutral" of "unbiased" is totally different from yours.

As a friend I ask you just one favour: if you're planing a list of acknowledgements like the last time, please remove my name. I don't want to see my name associated with your article. Please respect my wish.

As a friend I still hope you will come to senses. Better late than never. ...It's time for me to resign now. Good luck!

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

if referencing the official documents is for you "cherry picking", that is your problem.

I have showed facts, and you are refusing them now.

I am sorry you think that I am biased and not neutral, because I am only bringing out the truth from the documents as they have been written, but apparently many persons do not like me to do it.

It seems to me you are among the ones that refuse to see and accept the facts as they are, and I have difficulty to realize the reasons of your refusal to accept even the very evident and officially reported facts.

But do not worry Marc, I will not mention your name, so your reputation will not be impacted in any way.

Thanks for your help on this thread until now ... and good luck to you too.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nilsson wrote: "..........It's time for me to resign now........... "

Hi Marc, despite we have not always been in agreement on the interpretation of the facts, I admit that you have provided a lot of useful info from your side , highlighting several valuable points and pointing to details that we were missing in the heat of the discussion, always fairly debating with all of us.

I hope you will change your mind and stay with us in this never-ending but very funny discussion !

If not, we will really miss you in this thread !

Ciao, Alberto

[A Raven]

I wonder if the editor of the magazine that intends to publish the article in question, will have it peer reviewed by more than one person. or even ONE person, before deciding on whether to publish.
Having read just about EVERY official document on the Bismarck chase and sinking, I feel that I am more than qualified to peer review the item, and on this basis I submit my name for consideration.
I wait to hear from the magazine.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

as far as I proceed on this discussion started with the Article of War thread on May 25 th, 2013, so close to 2 years ago, as more I realize these arguments are making a lot of persons really sensible about it.

I knew since the beginning the subject I was opening being very delicate indeed, and I was expecting some sort of reactions about it.

But if one is afraid about the reactions should not do history researches.

I have already several highly qualified persons reviewing my work about this argument and if Mr. A. Raven is willing to propose himself to review it with me too, I can take in consideration his proposal, as I have nothing against it, the more and more qualified, the better for me.

So, Mr. A. Raven, just let me know, and we can find a time and a place to do it, since I am not in a hurry about publishing it now and I am thinking even a different and more important way on doing it from my side.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

It is a great disappointment and a great loss for all those following this controversy that Marc has withdrawn in frustration from this, his own thread. It goes without saying that I agree with pretty much everything he has observed on the claimed impartiality of your approach.

Thank goodness a German said it first, because as an Englishman my motive would be questioned instantly

The latest astonishing speculation that Pinchin observed that Hood's course is based on estimations from the Bridge were some kind of way of dissociating himself from a colossal deception is proof positive. Your starting point is an assumption of guilt, conspiracy, deception and coercion of juniors to decieve in support. Every piece of information is examined through this distorting lens to get what is required to "prove" your speculation. This is not a personal attack, just an observation that motivation has overwhelmed judgement.

Enough -back to the Plot, because for me, like a famous Scottish-born Russian Admiral, "I have not yet begun to fight!".

You have said

here it is your grid position ... just perfectly on top of " The Plot " D/6 bearing as you may realize.

63° 49' North and 31° 30' West

You are still pushing your circular argument, which came first the chicken or the egg? Was there a bearing of 318 first, out of which magically a position (needing two, that is 2 lines of position) was derived to plot on Norfolk's map? Or was there magically a position, which you have clearly established was not Suffolk's own flawed estimation of her position, from which the 318 was derived?

You have the Norfolk map so you know if there was just an estimated dashed line for Bismarck, and whether there are any other bearing derived "positions" of Suffolk. How about telling us? We know from what you have shown so far there were none such for other transmissions after 05:00.

BTW the Scottish born rear admiral's remains were dug up and taken to America because of some connection.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

Sean, you as well as many others writing here in, still need to explain to yourself at first why a Royal Navy Admiral, namely John Tovey, was writing incorrect statements at point 17 and 19 on his July 5th, 1941 dispatches.

You have to explain yourself why he declared 06.13 being PoW retreat time when he was himself previously writing the PoW retreated from the engagement after a couple of minutes being alone.

You have to explain yourself why he wrote 15 sea miles and not in condition to engage for Norfolk and Suffolk when he knew perfectly that it was not the reality, having in his hands the real facts and the manoeuvre they executed at 05.41 and 05.42 respectively.

The analysis of the document we called " The Plot ", just made in order to save a RearAdmiral which put himself in trouble releasing and signing declarations that were going to bring him in front to a board of inquiry for dereliction of duty, shows it is incorrect and made in August 1941 just to move Norfolk from 10 to 15 sea miles away according to Adm Tovey previous July declarations.

The above facts do not have anything to do with my impartiality, ... which is not an argument of discussion here in.

It seems to me that this argument is easily used by you and some others when you are left with no other response than admit the facts as they are.

I remind you that I have nothing to gain or loose discussing about those well proven facts I am just bringing out of the archives 74 years after the events.

So, please, stick to the facts and respond to the arguments if you like it to, and just avoid to talk about me personally and my absolutely fair approach.

Marc left after having himself asked about Pinchin and " The Plot " and the conclusions are that " The Plot " so the ADM 116/4352 Exhibit A is an incorrect document and Pinchin wrote on it that he only was responsible for the bearings and not for the distances reported in there that he took from the "bridge" of Norfolk.
Some bearings he traced have not been used because with the incorrect distances he used enlarging the battlefield, he could not join the Norfolk and Suffolk tracks because of it, but still he left them in there like the ones at 05.41 and 06.20 ... now everyone can easily realize why he did it that way ...
Those are the facts, ... like it or not ... and are all visible, traced, written and signed by Pinchin.

Just putting them on their correct position and changing an invented BC1 track, traced in there for the known reasons, with a real one, ... the document can be easily corrected and used as reference.

This thread as far as I am concerned ends here. Enough said ...

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

I notice you have spent time on other matters (requesting I consider your "facts" versus Tovey's Report etc) and not addressed my point of how you get a position from a bearing only. Or a position derived from nothing to give you a bearing.I can understand how it would be better to divert attention elsewhere.

Your plot of the geographical positions including extrapolated Suffolk at 05:41 is extremely interesting. Since as recently as 05:22, just about when Norfolk was seeing smoke on the port side, Suffolk reported "Emergency. Repeat back. My 04:56 B. No Change. My position 63 55N 30 55W" means to me Bismarck still bore 196degrees 15 miles with the same course and speed. If you were kindly to put this 05:41 estimate of Bismarck's position on your plot, it would put Bismarck close to and on Norfolk's port side.

In actual fact you have already done this as sean_trial_013.jpg back in sept! So around the time 05:40 Pinchin was busily plotting enemy in sight reports, Suffolk was telling him she was 10 miles due north of him and Bismarck was c.10 miles fine on his port bow!!! Right where the smoke is! Norfolk has not been radio reporting her position, so until Ellis gets the Bismarck positions plotted up, he has no idea how far out he is from where he has been reporting he is. He therefore is not surprised he cannot see Norfolk, because he does realise their positions say they should be less than 10 miles apart. In Norfolk the non-appearance of Suffolk or worse still Bismarck based on her reports must have been disturbing.

The question is when did Norfolk realise how bad Suffolk's navigation was, and when did they adjust their estimate of Bismarck's track to correct for this? You have Norfolk's map and you will know whether it has a realignment, when W-W realised there was something seriously wrong with Suffolk's positioning. You have the Norfolk map before the 05:00 fragment you have shown, so you know how consistently the dashed line representing Bismarck's estimated track stays north of Norfolk's track.

On Pinchin's Plot, a dashed line represents this original estimate of Bismarck's track, included to show how by extrapolation PoW derived the 17 mile range she reported, when she had no device on board which could accurately estimate such a range. 17 miles from one little square to the other on the extension of the line. However Pinchin had realised this estimated track was too close to Norfolk and represented the real track further away. This Plot was produced at the enquiry and makes no attempt to incorporate Rowell's plan, also submitted at the same time, independently. The BCF track on the Plot is what was estimated on Norfolk's bridge at the time, not something only made available months later.

You have many times represented this as Pinchin dishonestly expanding the battlefield, whilst ignoring the inconvenient Norfolk ranges to Bismarck you yourself provided.

Who else has extended the battlefield? Well none other than the esteemed William Jurens in his excellent 1987 paper, the first scientific analysis of the action. He rejected PoW's estimate of 17 miles for his own, back extrapolated from later gunnery, as 38,000m ie 20.5 that is twenty point five nautical miles.

Perhaps you would care to plot this up?

This thread is not closed, and I hope Marc, Paul,Steve and Mr Raven will continue to contribute.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

at the end one realize that it has been a kind of wasting the time to demonstrate that " The Plot " map is incorrect analyzing every map detail.

It was enough to read carefully Pinchin written header to realize it.

Problem is that one needs to understand what he is looking at before being able to understand the " hidden " message.

Plot_Header_07.jpg (27.21 KiB) Viewed 2278 times

But after, ... the satisfaction is even bigger.

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohistory