The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Dunmunro,


This is not the place for this fight, but:

Excellent argument, you have illuminated Ellis' blunder with simple logic. He just remembered the range he shot at the radar bogie and stuck that in. His ramshackle memoir, based on hazy memories is of no value compared with his detailed report written at the time, despite the attempts to portray it as the hidden truth revealed at last by a tortured soul.

I am waiting for Alberto to say that Busch measured the range to the definitively identified Suffolk using radar again, he should always try to score the maximum demerits for misquoting and making history up.


Being provoked into name calling serves no purpose. Exposing the misrepresentations does.


Hello Antonio,

You keep misrepresenting the only conspiracy revealed by the 205/10 papers. That between Pound and Alexander to pretend there was ever a "thorough investigation". There is not the slightest evidence there ever was. Now you have implicated Winston as well in your imaginary cover-up, all the "business" in 205/10 becomes completely pointless.


All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by northcape »

dunmunro wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:10 pm Or do you think that Alberto is lying?
Would not be the first time!

On another note:
Antonio Bonomi wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:11 am
Again, it is illogical for you, ... surely not for me and many, ... many others.

Bye Antonio
Sp who are the many, many others? There is Alberto, which counts for one. Then there is a secobd Antonio (this one: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 815#p78942), but who technically is still the same person. So the "many many others" are one (1) person?
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

HMSVF wrote: "Just how does this strengthen your thesis ?"
Hi HMSVF,
I appreciate your post containing many reasonable observations in a polite form and I would be glad to answer you, when you will have condemned the personal insults that Mr.Dunmunro has addressed to me. His sentence that "Calling you a liar is not an insult, when it's true" gives you an answer to the above question.

Personal insults against forum members should not be tolerated in this forum, even when coming from fellows in a hot discussion !

In the same way, I will not answer directly to the other people who came in to acclaim such insulting guy (Mr.Wadinga) or even just to repeat such insults (this is from a no-added value poor person, present in this forum only to play his hooligan offensive role, that counts for zero anyway) just because they don't want to accept the real distance of Suffolk from Bismarck.



FACTS:
Geometry, mathematics and ...logic demonstrate that, being at 15 sm at 4:47 and proceeding at 29 knots vs 27, due to Germans turns (the Lutjens "S" turn) and to the slightly converging courses, Suffolk cannot be at more than 9-10 miles at 5:40 from Bismarck. Cross bearings from both sides confirm this distance.
Busch precise referred bearings and measured distance (176 hm is not a guess) support it and despite Mr.Wadinga pitiful attempt, this was not related to a trawler or a fisherman following the Germans... :lol: ....
Ellis autobiography also confirms the distance (18,000 yards) being much closer than the official version and gives the reasons why he decided not to engage, despite he could do so.

Antonio's reconstruction has placed SF where she was, in a complete picture that respects all known bearings and timings, taken at the very time of the action (not in the subsequent altered reports). Anyone wanting to challenge this reconstruction should be able to present a credible alternative, NOT the "official" Pinchin's Plot, please.... :lol:



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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

as Alberto correctly wrote, now the time to refute what has been demonstrated is over.
FACTS:
Geometry, mathematics and ...logic demonstrate that, being at 15 sm at 4:47 and proceeding at 29 knots vs 27, due to Germans turns (the Lutjens "S" turn) and to the slightly converging courses, Suffolk cannot be at more than 9-10 miles at 5:40 from Bismarck. Cross bearings from both sides confirm this distance.
Busch precise referred bearings and measured distance (176 hm is not a guess) support it and despite Mr.Wadinga pitiful attempt, this was not related to a trawler or a fisherman following the Germans... :lol: ....
Ellis autobiography also confirms the distance (18,000 yards) being much closer than the official version and gives the reasons why he decided not to engage, despite he could do so.

Antonio's reconstruction has placed SF where she was, in a complete picture that respects all known bearings and timings, taken at the very time of the action (not in the subsequent altered reports). Anyone wanting to challenge this reconstruction should be able to present a credible alternative, NOT the "official" Pinchin's Plot, please.... :lol:
Who wants to challenge the geometry and mathematics about the Norfolk and the Suffolk distance from the enemy in the early phase and during the Denmark Strait battle is kindly invited to do so on the thread were we have already discussed about it.

This one :

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 746#p76746


Since some already agreed on the bearings and distance evaluation, ... it is since months that we are waiting either the confirmation of what has been demonstrated or the evidence of another alternative way to calculate their distance from the enemy.

Use what you know about mathematics and geometry and do your homework, and avoid to come here in with a simply deny attitude without proposing your way to read the data we have at hand and determine their real distance from the enemy.

Mathematics and geometry are very precise laws and not ... opinions.

Lets see what you are able to do now, ... other than a simple deny attitude.

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

similarly, who wants to sustain that Adm Tovey while writing to Stephan Roskill was unreliable, is kindly required to produce evidence of this unreliability rather than use Sir L. Kennedy trial to sustain it.

This simply because this Kennedy trial was already refuted by Stephen Roskill by a direct writing to him at that time and everybody knows that now.

So, facts and evidence and not personal opinion or old, ... already refuted, ... insinuations.

In absence of new evidence, ... the fact stand, ... and the case is closed.

Enough said, ... the patience does have a limit, ...

NOTE : If the " hooligan/deniers" think that it is enough to be in numerical relative superiority here in while insulting and challenging ( their only intent and activity ) to demonstrate that they are right and we are wrong, ... well they are going to face once again a huge defeat.
You are already the looser side of this historical discussion and there is nothing you can do to change it now looking at what is surfaced lately as official documentation. You can only try to manage and have an honorable defeat.

Bye Antonio
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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,
who wants to sustain that Adm Tovey while writing to Stephan Roskill was unreliable, is kindly required to produce evidence of this unreliability
Like an imaginary ROOF signal on the 26th or his forgetting his demand to receive only bearings on D/F. Tovey was a very inventive fellow, he invented CMDS.

Job done. Next.
:D

Enough said, ... the patience does have a limit
What has apparently no limit is your propensity for promoting a ragbag of unsustained assertions based on zero evidence as if it was reality. Current respected authors (Messrs Jurens and Raven) have explained to you that your "work" is unconvincing. Still you bang on. You continue to withhold evidence, the Silver Bullet, either for commercial gain or because it is also so weak that its premature exposure and easy dismissal would render your construction unattractive to the least discriminating publisher.


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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

you have not done any job rather than demonstrating that we are discussing here about cowards and liars wearing an uniform, ... their similar liar Admiralty/Board, ... and their liar politicians up to the Prime Minister Sir W. S. Churchill, fully demonstrated on his book too.

Everything certified by the Royal Navy Official historian for World War 2 : Stephen Roskill.

The case is closed.

Go and do your job about mathematics and geometry if you are able to, ... otherwise just shut up, ... because you only demonstrate that you are both ignorant and incompetent of what is in discussion here, ... other than unfair.

You will have the silver bullet right in the middle of your eyes when it will be the right time for it.

Enough said ...

NOTE : Calling a person a liar ( or coward ) is not an insult, when it's true ( this according to Dunmunro :wink: ).

Bye Antonio
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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Your slapdash approach to accurately quoting sources, not to mention your policy of hiding information either by editing documents and maps to remove information which contradicts your "intuitions", or refusing to supply them at all, has meant you have won no support here apart from your loyal fellow Milanese (actually only one of them) who may be somewhat biased. :D

This is especially true when you are so clearly exposed as having done so, which has happened several times.

Even in the smallest things, aside from avoiding reasonably admitting that much of what Tovey wrote to Roskill was incorrect as outlined above, you make deliberate errors or dodge the facts. You keep trying to shut things down before any more of your factual corner-cutting is exposed.
Everything certified by the Royal Navy Official historian for World War 2 : Stephen Roskill.
You have quoted from Churchill and the Admirals without apparently reading the Foreword where Roskill writes on p 11:
"In 1949 I was appointed to the Cabinet Office Historical Section to write the volumes of the United Kingdom Military History Series published as the War at Sea 1939-1945 (HMSO 1954-61) under the editorship of the late Professor Sir James Butler. though often referred to colloquially as the "official histories" of World war Two that description is in fact incorrect, as anyone who troubles to read the Editor's preface to my first volume can easily ascertain............"



So Stephen Roskill was not the "Royal Navy Official historian for World War 2"- he says so.

What he also says on the same page:
In 1949 I also got into touch with all the leading naval men of my period. Their response was without exception extremely helpful and cordial, they all agreed to read and criticize the drafts of chapters describing events in which they had taken part, or of which they had special knowledge, and they sent me a large number of valuable letters in amplification of the official records of those events.
Yet despite all this depth of knowledge and developing his mastery of the whole picture from 1949 to 1977 he cannot provide a single corroboration of Tovey's allegation of CMDS, contradicts him on timing by saying it was after a "post-mortem" and provides only reference to the bureaucratic bumblings of 205/10 in footnote as any supporting evidence at all. Evidence which does not mention Court Martial or Board of Inquiry or disciplinary measures at all. Which is why he doesn't actually quote it because it doesn't support the allegation.

I hope to prove even less "ignorant and incompetent" when shooting you down in the future, I can't wait to replicate Houdini's trick and do a "Silver" bullet catch :D

BTW repeated use of the words Coward and Liar will not rile me, I see they originate from your deep well of motivating intuition expressed as:
Here the only fairy tale (that has been "imposed" by the "winners" for 75+ years) is Kennedy's novel, full of heroes, honorable decisions and consensus from British side.

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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

now, as usually left with no arguments to counter the facts regarding those evident cowards and liars at various levels we are talking about, ... the " hooligan/deniers " strategy is to try to switch target to the source, ... like if trying to declare unreliable the source will eliminate the facts we are analyzing here in.
Captain Stephen Wentworth Roskill, CBE, DSC, FBA, DLitt (1 August 1903 – 4 November 1982) was a senior career officer of the Royal Navy, serving during the Second World War and, after his enforced medical retirement, served as the official historian of the Royal Navy from 1949 to 1960. He is now chiefly remembered as a prodigious author of books on British maritime history.
Career as a naval historian

On retiring from active service in 1948, Roskill was appointed by the Cabinet Office Historical Section to write the official naval history of the Second World War. His three volume work The War at Sea was published between 1954 and 1961.

In 1961, Roskill was elected a senior research fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, where he was instrumental in the foundation of the Churchill Archives Centre. The centre holds 180 boxes of Roskill's personal and research papers. After retirement, he was a visiting lecturer at several universities, including being Lees Knowles Lecturer in 1961, the Distinguished Visiting Lecturer at the U.S. Naval Academy in 1965, and Richmond Lecturer at Cambridge University in 1967. He was elected a vice president of the Navy Records Society in 1964 and an honorary vice president in 1974.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Roskill

I am sure somebody will try to change wikipedia now, like happened for WW and Leach. What a shame.

A pathetic child strategy, ... with no way to succeed, ... from somebody that has already lost this discussion very evidently.

The only hope to prove being less " ignorant and incompetent " that right now someone is showing up himself to be, .. is to work on the Norfolk and Suffolk map on the other thread as required, ... showing me respecting their bearings, ... their distances thru the battle, ... and demonstrate that they have always been at around 15 sea miles away from the enemy.

Since it is mathematically and geometrically impossible, ... there is no way out here than admit they were closer and consequently that declaration was an intentional lie from Adm Tovey, based on the false " The Plot " they realized on purpose.

Same goes for the 06:13 invention by Tovey/Wake-Walker, the Y turret moved in, ... and the subsequent shameful " Cover Up " they did as well demonstrated by the ADM 205/10 pages 331-332-333-334.

As I wrote, ... a story of liars covering cowards, ... first trying to punish them according to the Articles of War in place, ... and soon after quit the initiative and alter the reports to modify the reality and proceed with intentional lies for their rewarding.

One of the most shameful pages in naval history.

Bye Antonio
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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Since you insist on diverting attention away from the Silver Bullet which is supposed to be able to close the matter of CMDS definitively, it would appear the person
that has already lost this discussion very evidently.
Is you. :D

That Wikipedia is wrong surely surprises no-one here.

You have not addressed this at all:

Yet despite all this depth of knowledge and developing his mastery of the whole picture from 1949 to 1977 he cannot provide a single corroboration of Tovey's allegation of CMDS, contradicts him on timing by saying it was after a "post-mortem" and provides only reference to the bureaucratic bumblings of 205/10 in footnote as any supporting evidence at all. Evidence which does not mention Court Martial or Board of Inquiry or disciplinary measures at all. Which is why he doesn't actually quote it because it doesn't support the allegation.

How can
as well demonstrated by the ADM 205/10 pages 331-332-333-334.
confirm "Court Martial or Board of Inquiry or disciplinary measures " when none of those words appear?


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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,


this is the only reaction you are able to obtain from your stubborn looser position :

Ridere.gif
Ridere.gif (11.65 KiB) Viewed 2677 times

The mathematics and geometry is waiting for you, ... go study and do your homework, ... we wait your acceptance and admission of been wrong here in.

No " bullshitting " anymore, ... if you like to demonstrate that you are right and I am wrong just do it !

So far I am right and your are ... just refusing to admit that you are wrong, ... surely wrong, ... and you know it.

Running away, ... refusing to answer, ... change subject as required to avoid to admit the reality will not do any good for you and will never allow you to demonstrate the opposite of what I have demonstrated being right.

Bye Antonio
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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Isn't it "loser"? :oops:

In regard of geometry I recommend you to find the cardinal error in your map.
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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you can make any correction you like Marc.

Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg (66.66 KiB) Viewed 2655 times

Just do it and show it to everybody, but on the dedicated thread :

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 057#p79057

Note : I am sure he will understand anyhow ... :wink:

Thanks Antonio
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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

So with no evidence there ever was a CMDS we move back to disproving your maps...……………….

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:54 am Hello everybody,

as Alberto correctly wrote, now the time to refute what has been demonstrated is over.
FACTS:
Geometry, mathematics and ...logic demonstrate that, being at 15 sm at 4:47 and proceeding at 29 knots vs 27, due to Germans turns (the Lutjens "S" turn) and to the slightly converging courses, Suffolk cannot be at more than 9-10 miles at 5:40 from Bismarck. Cross bearings from both sides confirm this distance.
Busch precise referred bearings and measured distance (176 hm is not a guess) support it and despite Mr.Wadinga pitiful attempt, this was not related to a trawler or a fisherman following the Germans... :lol: ....
Ellis autobiography also confirms the distance (18,000 yards) being much closer than the official version and gives the reasons why he decided not to engage, despite he could do so.

Antonio's reconstruction has placed SF where she was, in a complete picture that respects all known bearings and timings, taken at the very time of the action (not in the subsequent altered reports). Anyone wanting to challenge this reconstruction should be able to present a credible alternative, NOT the "official" Pinchin's Plot, please.... :lol:
Who wants to challenge the geometry and mathematics about the Norfolk and the Suffolk distance from the enemy in the early phase and during the Denmark Strait battle is kindly invited to do so on the thread were we have already discussed about it.

This one :

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 746#p76746


Since some already agreed on the bearings and distance evaluation, ... it is since months that we are waiting either the confirmation of what has been demonstrated or the evidence of another alternative way to calculate their distance from the enemy.

Use what you know about mathematics and geometry and do your homework, and avoid to come here in with a simply deny attitude without proposing your way to read the data we have at hand and determine their real distance from the enemy.

Mathematics and geometry are very precise laws and not ... opinions.

Lets see what you are able to do now, ... other than a simple deny attitude.

Bye Antonio
This is what Antonio wrote earlier:
Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait
Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:52 am

Hello everybody,

it is clear from this now from this accurate enough positioning of the Norfolk track ( thanking the official cross bearings ) that Norfolk distance from Hood at 06:00 was round 11 sea miles and Norfolk was at around 12 sea miles from the enemy, the Bismarck.

The Norfolk available Gunnery distances at open fire and at cease fire are confirming with the acceptable rangefinder tolerances the above scenario, so we can assume it now being the most accurate re-construction of the Norfolk track available, this unfortunately is due to the missing availability of the Norfolk own tactical plot that meanwhile just disappeared from the records, like the Suffolk ones.

A similar chart has been reproduced also for the Suffolk using her official bearings and she resulted being at around 9 sea miles from the enemy Bismarck at 05:42, immediately after the " Enemy in Sight ! " signal from Hood / Pow and just before making a circle back north that enlarged her distance at 15 sea miles at 05:52, when Hood opened fire on the enemy.

Bye Antonio :D
So Antonio claims that Suffolk was ~18K yds at 0542 just before she made a 360D turn and moved directly away from Bismarck for 6 minutes:

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/S&Nplot.gif

and he claims above that Ellis's memoir supports this contention:
It snowed during the night, and the wind rose, About: dawn it
cleared to the southeast and southward, and we could see ice blink
to the north and west, But we still could not see any other British
ship, The Norfolk was still miles out of sight and gunrange when
the action between the Germans and the Hood and Prince of Wales
began, Of our battleships we could see only the funnel tops and
the gun flashes.

The morning of this brief, disastrous, battle was May 24th.

When fire was opened, the Suffolk was roughly 18,000 yards
astern of the enemy, ready to "flank mark" 'our heavy shisp'
fall-of-shot, We had set watch on the appropriate radio set and
frequency, and called the Hood repeatedly, but without response.
We were still calling the Hood when she blew up,


To have opened fire from our shadowing position, which it
was still necessary to maintain pending the outcome of the main
action, would have heen relatively ineffective, with only four
guns bearing, while it would certainly have confused the battle»
ships' spotting.
The Suffolk's tactical function of the moment was to follow
and flank mark,
As the action was so brief, the battleships' failure to
utilise our readiness to flank mark probably made no difference,.
But it was a failure, and one I think explicable by the lack of
training together as a fleet of the overburdened units of the Home
Fleet.
Fire was opened at 0552:30 (using PoW's salvo chart as a time reference).

Ellis's memoirs place Suffolk at ~3000 yds or less, from Bismarck at 0542 - which even the A&A doppelgangers must know cannot be correct.

Rather than toss Ellis's memoirs on the scrap heap, A&A prefer to lie and pretend that Ellis says something that he doesn't.

There are no references in the various RN action reports, AFAIK, to Suffolk trying to communicate over the common FC wave radio link during the action.
Hello Antonio,

So with no evidence there ever was a CMDS we move back to disproving your maps...……………….

All the best

wadinga
Antonio's reconstructed map also places Suffolk within visual range of Norfolk...which we all know cannot be correct and even Ellis's memoir says that Norfolk was out of sight and out of gunrange from Bismarck.

Just to make it perfectly clear.

Antonio:
A similar chart has been reproduced also for the Suffolk using her official bearings and she resulted being at around 9 sea miles from the enemy Bismarck at 05:42, immediately after the " Enemy in Sight ! " signal from Hood / Pow and just before making a circle back north that enlarged her distance at 15 sea miles at 05:52, when Hood opened fire on the enemy.

Bye Antonio :D
Ellis:
When fire was opened, the Suffolk was roughly 18,000 yards
astern of the enemy, ready to "flank mark" 'our heavy shisp'
fall-of-shot, We had set watch on the appropriate radio set and
frequency, and called the Hood repeatedly, but without response.
We were still calling the Hood when she blew up,
So Ellis = 18k yds and Antonio = 15nm at 0552:30 (referenced to PoW's salvo chart).
Locked