The Plot

[Herr Nilsson]

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

Ok, I see your point Marc about that single bearing, ... but we can talk about it later.

Meanwhile do you mind to confirm me that what I stated on my previous post is correct.

I mean that out of your 6+2 bearings, so 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 ... plus 7 and 8 I have added, ... 2 are clearly incorrectly made ( the 5 and 6 ) and 2 are not even taken in account at all ( 7 and 8 ), ... just left on "open sea" on the original Pinchin map.

While on my revisited plot version, ... the bearings A,B,C,D,E and F are all correctly traced joining the various official tracks.

After we are in agreement about those ones we can move on analyzing the 05.50 with bearing 220° between Norfolk and Hood.

I hope you agree with me that having the 05.41 ones for Norfolk both toward Bismarck ( 276°) as well as toward Suffolk ( 318°) ... and the one at 06.00 from Norfolk to Hood ( 230°), ... plus the one at 06.20 between Norfolk and Suffolk too ( 335°) ... this one at 05.50 falls in between many others more important taken immediately before and after .... and consequently it is surely less important.

Just let me know ...

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

.. this one at 05.50 falls in between many others more important taken immediately before and after .... and consequently it is surely less important.

Why?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

because first I like to realize the battlefield on his overall general dimensions and match all tracks of all units based on the available official tracks, ... and only after having done that we can start evaluating the details contained into them.

One work at a time ... first the most important one, ... like the elimination of the macroscopic errors like the Hood and PoW tracks and plotted points used by Pinchin and the correct relative positioning on Suffolk and Norfolk tracks each others, versus the enemy and toward Hood/PoW, ... than we can start looking at all single points in there ... and there is not only the bearing you are showing now Marc, ... it is much more complicated than that ... with a lot of parameters to be taken in account and properly evaluated, ... and some of those corrections needed while fixing those next ones are helping on resolving that one too.

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

No, why is this particular bearing "surely less important"?!

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

because this point is tightly connected to the Norfolk own traced track and speed in conjunction with the Hood incorrect track traced under it by Pinchin.

In order to fit that bearing with the Norfolk and Hood tracks, the Norfolk own track has been " compressed " between 05.55 and 06.00. Everybody can easily measure it and control by comparing the same run track by Norfolk traced track between 05.50 and 05.55 on same map, ... to realize what has been done there.

Than, to make it fit, the Hood track down below has been traced moving Hood from 05.22 ( this will be interesting for Sean to realize why at 05.22 they knew the presence of BC1 already there ) until 06.02 going to south-west instead of sailing toward north west on course 300-280 as it should have been, ... and by the making of those 2 " tricks " together, ... than they realized the 220° at 05.50 at 14 sea miles as well as the 230° at 06.02 ( ? ) at 15 sea miles, ... only by moving Hood track away from Norfolk while compressing a piece of her track between 05.55 and 06.00.

You can check yourself as it is not difficult to realize it using this comparison I made for you.

Comparison_0550_Norfolk_Hood.jpg (123.95 KiB) Viewed 492 times

In RED you have the incorrect tracks realized with " The Plot " on his official version by Pinchin using an Hood invented track as you can see yourself.

In GREEN you have the correct bearings positioned after having added the correct Hood/PoW tracks they had in their hand made by Rowell.

You can see yourself the effect of correcting the Norfolk track between 05.55 and 06.00 as it should have been in reality.

But again this is just to demonstrate you how wrong that original Pinchin map is and what has been done on August 1941 to invent those distances and change the Norfolk one at 06.00 bot from Hood as well as from Bismarck.

My point here is to establish correctly the battlefield at first, ... and my revisited map does it with no errors.

Than as I told you, ... we will need to correct what was not properly traced on the tracks themselves.

Hope now it is clear ...

My questions to you remain ... do you agree with me now ?

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

I disagree.

So Norfolk's ship's log entry is a fake?

[wadinga]

No Marc,

They used a time machine to go back from August to May and entered the results of their subterfuge into the Log in real time so the OOW could initial them.

and by the making of those 2 " tricks " together, ... than they realized the 220° at 05.50 at 14 sea miles as well as the 230° at 06.02 ( ? ) at 15 sea miles,

Antonio, please stop and think before posting

220 degrees at 05:50 is a real bearing taken under conditions of minimum stress, later bearings in the heat of battle, taken on the site of Hood's destruction might not be so reliable.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

nobody said or wrote that the entry at 05.50 on Norfolk war diary is a fake, in fact it is not a fake at all.
What I wrote you is that I decided to manage it after other more significant bearings in my priority to make a correct map.

But I am still waiting your agreement about points 5 and 6 being incorrectly traced on " The Plot " and about points 7 and 8 not being taken into any account on Pinchin original map Marc, reference my previous post.

Similarly, I am still waiting your agreement that the 6 bearings on my map are all ok and with no errors on them.

If your previous disagreement is related to the above questions and statements, please explain me why with the supporting data .

Thanks in advance for your usual fairness and education.

@ Wadinga,

I do not think it is necessary for me to remind you when and for which purpose " The Plot " was made and who took benefit from it in a very " unusual " way to say the least.

How they obtained the 15 sea miles between Norfolk and Hood at 06.00 is above to be seen and I avoid to comment since it is so evident in graphic form that it is not necessary for me to explain it again.

That is the reason why " The Plot " is an incorrect document.

I have noticed that lately some phrases are directed to me personally and not to the discussed topics, ... so now it is my turn to tell you and everybody else here in : please stop and think before posting, ... and read again the forum rules.

Fairness and education are mandatorily required, ... and I stop here hoping it is going to be clear enough.

I know that some bearings are more reliable than others, ... and since I am the one that researched them all into the archives I think I know that well enough.

Still some bearings have been used to make " The Plot " some others not used at all and ending on the water of the map itself.

So if you like to comment on why the 06.20 known bearing between Norfolk and Suffolk of 335° as not been used by Pinchin even if partially traced on his map ... please do so, ... just like for the one between Norfolk and Suffolk at 05.41 of 318° reference Norfolk original map I provided you above, ... and D/6 partially traced bearing on " The Plot ".
I like to know your opinion about both of them.

Than I am sure you have noticed the 05.22 reference on "The Plot " between Norfolk and BC1, ... so what about that one ?
What is your opinion about it ?

As you can read, I am sticking to the facts with no personal evaluation of your way to respond or avoid responding and with no recommendation on how to manage your posting here in, your reputation, what your friends should avoid you to do, and so on.

So, I wait your responses now on the fact related questions ... in fairness and education ... please.

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

@Antonio

You have Plan 4 and the 220* bearing at 0550. So what are you going to do with it?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

Sorry, still I do not understand your position Marc.

Do you agree that the points 5 ( connection to an incorrect Hood track ) and 6 ( PoW plotted positions not matching anything ) are incorrectly made on Pinchin original map " The Plot " ?

Do you agree that points 7 ( at 06.20 ) and 8 ( at 05.41 ) are not managed at all on Pinchin map and end up in the water ?

The_Plot_bearing_evaluations_01.jpg (93.32 KiB) Viewed 453 times

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

He doesn't pretend to have a perfect solution, that's why his map is better than yours. There is no "less important".

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I did not ask you if it is better or worst than mine.

I just asked you if those are incorrect points or not in your evaluations, if you agree those are errors ( 5 and 6 ) and missing bearing connections ( 7 and 8 ).

Please I would like to have your response now, ... in fairness.

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

I thought I answered many times before: These "errors" are no errors at all, but information.

So what about 0550 220°? Are you going to move Norfolk's track in relation to plan 4 or do you alter a primary source to make it fit?

Please I would like to have your response now, ... in fairness.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

Well, to read that you consider information some intentional data compliance avoidance ( bearing 7 and 8 at 06.20 and 05.41 ) and some incorrect data placed on the map ( Hood track and PoW position ) used to provide and support misleading data to the evaluators … is by itself clear enough for me at this stage.

Obviously I consider them in a very different way, given what that map has been used for on August 1941; “ The Plot” has been made and used to change first hand provided information at the Hood First Board of Inquiry ( what about the first hand data input reliability and importance here now ) to incorrect data provided to the Hood Second board of Inquiry supported by an incorrectly traced map.

There are no doubts about it, this is a given fact well recorded into 2 Royal Navy Admiralty Official board of Inquiry on 1941.

You can keep your opinion about "The Plot" map and the information provided in there, while I will surely keep mine, in respectful fairness.

For me the case is closed as far as maps correlation, I do not need any other input from you about it.

Moving on your request about the bearing at 05.50 of 220° between Norfolk and Hood, well here the argument is a bit more complicated that drawing a direct line connecting a partially correct Norfolk track to an incorrect Hood track to realize an incorrect map, … that was easy to do for Pinchin given the tolerances used and the final result to be obtained, … the poor evaluation and scrutiny done on the result.

Now I need to try to make it real and credible at least to you all and to all the future readers of this subject, and not invented for an easy acceptance board as Pinchin as been allowed to do on August 1941.

If you consider a primary source “ The Plot “ and the Hood/PoW and Norfolk track traced on it, … my answer is obviously YES !
I will modify both of them according to real data in my hands from various sources.

First of all I have to realize the real battlefield and place on it the correct singular tracks as I did.

Than I needed to figure out what was correct and what was incorrectly made on maps and tracks, … or declared incorrectly on later reports, … and here the first hand information declared or the war diaries inputs versus the much later written declarations and reports do have a great importance for me.

This made clear, … what I am doing is the following, … substitute into “ The Plot “ the incorrect Hood and PoW references used by Pinchin, … use the Rowell map ( obtained from PLAN 4), … control course, and speed of Hood and PoW, … make the necessary corrections and than trace the lines on bearing connections, … one at 05.50 at 40° ( opposite of 220° ) and one at 06.00 at 50° ( opposite of 230°).

This way I will have the 2 lines A-A1 and B-B1 and it is obvious that the connection A-A1 of 14 sea miles is longer than the one B-B1 at 06.00.

0550_evaluation_01.jpg (42.15 KiB) Viewed 371 times

This only means that Norfolk was obviously closer to Hood than 14 sea miles, this is for sure as everybody can easily realize and once again PInchin map is demonstrated being incorrect as we all know now.

Now I need to have Norfolk sailing at 30 knots, so covering 1000 yards each minute from point A (05.50) to point B ( 06.00).

I have 2 main options here, … the option 1 traced by Pinchin ( 220° than 270°) you can see on the square 1 … and the option 2 that is the Norfolk original map which shows a connection of 250° from 05.50 until 06.00 you can see on the square 2.

Now, … I am open to suggestions … lets see what are the different opinions … which I will always accept and respect while choosing my way to proceed of course …

Bye Antonio