The Plot

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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: "It would be nice to see what it actually says especially if it indicates the ability to record something at 05:47 that won't actually happen until 05:53. :cool: "
HI Sean,
I'm afraid you are mixing up the cause and the effect. The cause (of the Suffolk circle) being the enemy appearing to turn back (05:47 in the war diary) , and the effect being the order given by Capt.Ellis to turn the ship making the circle to open range (possibly at 5:53 as Antonio suggests in his option 2).......

Usually the effect follows the cause and not viceversa..... :wink:

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: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Plot

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto

Maybe Antonio has showed you the "War Diary" he is talking about, but the Norfolk deck log ( RN does not have Kriegstagbuch) he scanned and posted (after some prodding) does not show any such entry.

Suffolk's narrative says:
Enemy appeared to be approaching, and in case he had reversed course at 0538 (being "turned" by the Battle Cruiser Squadron), Suffolk circled to keep northward of enemy. It was soon realised, however, that the enemy was not approaching, the appearance being due to mirage, which also explains the similar (false) appearances at 0325.
which agrees with
Capt Ellis own report describing the turn back due to a "mirage" that Pinchin depicted at 05.42 on " The Plot " and Paton shows on the Norfolk Strategical map.


Paton was in HMS Suffolk, does Antonio mean Suffolk Strategical map? The one he has shown no thumbnails from, just the Header?

Where does the idea Suffolk commenced a circle at 05:53 come from? Ellis' autobiography, I thought he didn't mention any circles, Suffolk's deck log- never seen it. Or is it the real event from 05:40 shifted to allow the maintenance of the fiction that Suffolk had sneaked to within easy gun range by 05:41 and then "ran away" when the loud noises started? :stop:

All the best

Sean
"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:
Hi Sean,
You mentioned in your previous post Antonio statements: "
Norfolk own war diary telling us that enemy appeared to turn back but at 05.47
and his 2 options:
1) We trust Capt Ellis official report and Pinchin and it happened at 05.42.
2) We trust the Norfolk war diary entry ( 05.47 enemy seems turning back ) and Capt Ellis autobiography and it happened probably at 05.53, after the open fire."
and you commented:
"It would be nice to see what it actually says especially if it indicates the ability to record something at 05:47 that won't actually happen until 05:53. :cool:"
I just based my consideration on what you and Antonio wrote, without adding anything, as in your reasoning above you mixed up cause and effect.

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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you wrote :
Herr Nilsson wrote:"Ranges of Hood are estimations given from bridge"
By whom in your opinion, ... and why different from the Capt Phillips ones ?

Bye Antonio :D
Who knows...is it really different from Capt Phillips?
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,

@ Herr Nilsson,

just compare the declarations given at the Hood Second board :

RearAdm Wake-Walker :
I think you will find that from 30,000 yards ( 15 sea miles ) the only thing you can see of the "HOOD" is probably the top of her superstructure and her funnels and bridge, and therefore it is quite impossible for me to say at what deck level it was.
Wake-Walker changed his declaration from 20.000 yards ( 10 sea miles ) at the Hood First Board to 15 sea miles.


Capt Phillips :
NORFOLK was fine on the starboard quarter of our heavy ships, both of which were plainly visible from near the waterline upwards. ... After a few minutes of action I observed what appeared to me to be a hit, which I should estimate to be on or near the starboard above water torpedo tubes. This hit, which was quite separate in time from the firing of HOOD's salvoes, had the appearance of a brilliant splash of flame, as I have tried to indicate in rough sketch Phase I. I remarked on this to Admiral Wake-Walker and suggested that she had been hit near the torpedo tubes.
Capt Phillips maintained his declaration given at the Hood First board, since confirmed he saw the Hood and PoW from near the waterline upwards, while Wake-Walker was only seeing the top of the top of her superstructure and her funnels and bridge.

Phillips described the Torpedo tube hit, visible only from the 20.000 yards ( 10 sea miles ), he signed for during the Hood First board declaration, adding that he showed it to RearAdm Wake-Walker too :shock: .

Based on the above, it should NOT be difficult to realize who gave to Pinchin the incorrect distance of more than 15 sea miles.

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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Please define "near the waterline".

Edit:

Image
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,

@ Herr Nilsson,

we have long discussed about it doing also a correlation of distances.
Hood_profile_011 (2).jpg
Hood_profile_011 (2).jpg (64.38 KiB) Viewed 1325 times
Reading Capt Phillips words my interpretation is that he saw the hull of Hood upwards, starting from a part of the hull that was between the torpedo tubes he could clearly see and showed to RearAdm Wake-Walker too, ... and the waterline.

In any case a starting position on the hull BELOW the torpedo tubes; this is out of discussion.

In case of doubts go and look at his signed sketches, to realize what he saw and depicted of Hood, and signed for.

Capt Phillips was precise, at the First and at the Second board and DID NOT Change his declarations.

Somebody else did and changed from 10 sea miles to 15 sea miles.

Now please do NOT try to tell me that Capt Phillips told Pinchin to trace Hood at 15 sea miles from Norfolk at 06.00.

Somebody else did it from the bridge, ... surely NOT Capt Phillips, ... and it should not be so difficult to imagine who did it.

Maybe the same one who commissioned " The Plot " ... and after used it too ??? ... :think:

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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Post by Herr Nilsson »

I know, we've discussed it. :cool:
Near the waterline does not mean waterline!
Please could you define what height (in metres) "near the waterline" means? Or below the torpedo tubes? 1,2,3 or 4 metres? Or even 5?
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,

@ Herr Nilsson

you can evaluate yourself :
Hood_torpedo_tubes_01.jpg
Hood_torpedo_tubes_01.jpg (115.12 KiB) Viewed 1319 times
Between the waterline and the torpedo tubes, there are around 2 meters judging from this photo.

Since both Capt Phillips and Commander Luce depicted a good part of Hood hull being visible, including the quarterdeck, ... we can take a good half of this distance.

Consequently around 1 meter above the waterline should be the correct statement in my opinion.

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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Plot

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Once again you put words in a witness' mouth. Phillips says nothing about the distance in miles or yards at all at the second Enquiry. :negative:
More, Capt Phillips even confirmed the distance at the second board
You accept you put your interpretation on what he says he could see.
Reading Capt Phillips words my interpretation is that he saw the hull of Hood upwards
Several witnesses, some with binoculars said they couldn't see the mantlet doors at all, because Hood was too far away.

Notably you ignore is the first words of the same sentence you quote.
NORFOLK was fine on the starboard quarter of our heavy ships,
Show us how, with either the Triangle of Doom or your scenarios, given the approx heading of Hood at destruction, Norfolk can be
fine on the starboard quarter of our heavy ships,


Any answers about what evidence shows Suffolk circled after open fire and not before as Pinchin records?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Plot

Post by Cag »

Dear All,
Thank you Wadinga and Antonio for your kind words! (Gentelmanly conduct costs nothing but is worth a great deal) I will always attempt to help if I can, the Logs of Suffolk and Norfolk are available from the National Archives in Kew for around £31 plus postage and packing. Both logs do state in the header at the top that they were at sea, suprise suprise, but quite importantly that they were both 'shadowing' BC and PG. Norfolk's first log entry on the 24th was at 0541 enemy in sight 276 degrees (The 280 16nm in the BC Kriegstagebuch?) 0550 Hood and PoW in sight 220 degrees 14nm, 0555 Hood and PoW engage enemy, 0602 Hood blows up, 0614 PoW broke off action (Perhaps prompting the Tovey mistake?) 0640 PoW joined stationed 5nm 110 degrees from Norfolk. Continued shadowing enemy on MLA 220 degrees 24 knots. Suffolks first entry is at 0010 Visibility decreased to 2-3nm (Suffolks log is a lot harder to read!) 0245 enemy is reported red 40 degrees 10nm, 0445 enemy in sight 15nm 184 degrees, 0547 enemy in sight appeared turning 180 degrees. Hood and PoW reported sighting enemy, 0553 Battle of Denmark Strait begins, 0600 Hood blows up, 0612 firing ceased on both sides (Adding to Toveys mistake?) 0619 Suffolk opens fire on enemy by 220 degrees 9.5nm (The 19,000yds in Suffolks narrative due to Sunderland) 0623 ceased fire.
In the 1st board Capt Phillips is reported to have said that " saw brilliant flash under the after funnel which attributed to warhead explosion in upper deck torpedo tubes, saw corona of flame lasting 2 or 3 secs. Died down extending horizontally along the ship which pulsated. Immediately after subsequent salvo from BC straddles and large explosion took place". In the 2nd board he was reported to have said " after few minutes of action observed what appeared to be a hit estimated to be starboard side near above water torpedo tubes with brilliant flash of flame as in Phase 1 sketch" he remarked on this to Wake-Walker. He does state that he could not see if the torpedo doors were open as it was "too far off" and he was "only observing intermitently 'through glasses' " (As were a lot of the witnesses meaning what could be seen was more dependant on whether you were using optical equipment rather than what distance you were at) but does also state he could plainly see both heavy ships on starboard quarter (Hood and PoW?). He was then showed the evidence submitted by the 1st board of his statement of the warhead explosion which he denied as he had not attributed to any warhead explosion but had said he had seen a hit which he estimated to be 'near' the torpedo tubes. Commander Luce in the 1st board was reported to say that he was on the flag deck and could observe fall of shot of BC, he did not see the Hood hit, he turned away and then back to see Hood explode. In the 2nd board he had moved from the flag deck onto the Compass platform and states it was "difficult to see the fall of shot". Hood was "at 035 inclination and could see quarter deck", again did not see Hood hit, he states that Lt Royds drew his attention to the Hood exploding and could not produce a better sketch as "memory fades quickly". The problem is that 'all' the evidence from the 1st to 2nd boards do not match, all of Diagram A is more or less incorrect and in Diagram B the Hood is at 050 right inclination where as in the 2nd board she was between 030 and 040 right (Some more!). Hope some of this helps
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,

thanks for your good inputs.

Regarding Adm Tovey being confused or not about PoW retreat time, ... probably based on the radio messages he received from Capt Leach himself, ... he wrote to the Admiralty on May 30th, 1941 that PoW retreated 2 ( two ) minutes after Hood explosion, ... so very close to the reality.

Than he changed his mind ... to 06.13 ... to be corrected by the Admiralty on 1948 back to 06.03 ... :think:

@ Wadinga,

while given your missed answer I consider that you agree that with the 06.20 bearing correctly placed on " The Plot " also the 05.41 goes where it belongs for Norfolk/Suffolk, ... proved also by the average speed calculations of Suffolk between 04.47 until 05.41 ... and closing forever the debate about 05.41 Norfolk and Suffolk correct positioning ...

Here you have the exact Capt Phillips interpretation of his wordings.

Sometimes an image is better than 10.000 words .... :wink:
Phillips_Hood_2nd_board.jpg
Phillips_Hood_2nd_board.jpg (114.56 KiB) Viewed 1291 times
Now you can read the notes and verify the inclination too ...

@ Herr Nilsson,

this signed drawing shows how much from the waterline Capt Phillips was considering the Hood visibility from his position, ... and as you can see it was very " near " the waterline ... given the amount of Hood quarterdeck he depicted.

Commander Luce was having the same " graphic " opinion.

RearAdm Wake-Walker meanwhile could only see the top of the superstructures and funnels ... :think:

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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Plot

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Judging by the variable distance views you have posted above, it is clear this drawing is Hood as if she was only a few hundred metres away, not even 20,000 yds. In other words rendered as Phillips saw her in his imagination, not what he actually viewed. Other equally credible witnesses say she was hull down. Abreast/ near torpedo tubes is a vague term. It might just mean at that distance along her hull, from the bow.

As the Captain of a 10,000 ton cruiser he was well aware of the danger above water torpedo tubes posed to the ships that carried them, and yet were far too big and easy to hit to make an effective attack using such short range, slow weapons. The Director of Naval Constructors had long thought Hood's TTs were an unnecessary hazard with no realistic chance of offensive success, had wanted them removed and was thus keen to implicate them in her destruction. Maybe the witness was led. :cool:

More pertinent is that he says "Inclination should be finer than that shown in this sketch". That is to say Norfolk is further astern of Hood than shown, and therefore more-importantly further away from Bismarck than the Triangle of Doom would imply.

All the best

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

@ Wadinga,

there is no evidence that fit your needs.

You are not satisfied with declarations, calculations, demonstrations, books, autobiography, photos, drawings ... simply nothing that is going to change the version of the facts you would like to support, ... despite being demonstrated incorrect.

Capt Phillips wrote and signed his declaration and that drawing represent what he saw, since he made it, ... and he made his sketches of Hood twice at the First as well as at the Second board ... basically with no changes.

It was somebody else that at the First board drew and signed for 20.000 yards and after changed his declarations :shock:
We now know that he was wrong and supported by a wrong map called " The Plot " while doing it.

Joining Norfolk position at 05.41 ( I have demonstrated you above being correct ), ... with her own position at 05.50 ( 14 sea miles from Hood at 220° from own war diary ) ... and tracing her until 06.00 following either her own Strategical plot track or Pinchin track from " The Plot " ... at 30 knots speed like we know from her own war diary, ... will bring Norfolk where Capt Phillips declared, ... where the Diagram B of the First board correctly placed her ... and NOT at 15 sea miles from Hood at 06.00.

But again, ... are you willing to accept the reality ? ... or you still want only to believe the invented story somebody told you on books for more than 70 years ... :think:

The PoW 06.13 retreat time is gone long ago, ... now finally also the 15 sea miles for Suffolk and Norfolk ... :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: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Plot

Post by Cag »

Dear All,
May I suggest that we do have actual evidence of what could be seen on the 24th rather than rely on drawn evidence? There is a picture from PG (At the Diagram B distance of 8.5 miles) of Hood exploding which if used as 'what the eye could see' visual evidence rather than through optical enhancing methods, ie Capt Phillips's glasses (Binoculars)is very little, if we then add the 1.5 mile added distance of Diagram B to Norfolk in my humble opinion I doubt that with the naked eye one could see the full hull of HMS Hood (Could Alberto give an opinion on this as I believe he served time at sea?). We also have an image taken from PoW of Hood at about the 900 ft distance stated in the map from Rowell (Hood bore 260 degrees 900ft throughout) where we can't see with the naked eye her quarterdeck as Commander Luce saw at the suggested Diagram B distance of 10 miles. Again I do think a great deal of difference depends on what people saw Hood with and where they were when they viewed her (The height at which someone observes something is critical to their observable limit and therfore what is possible to be seen).
Cag.
Post Reply