Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by dunmunro » Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:01 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:22 pm
Hello everybody,

Bundesarchiv_Bismarck_first_salvo_07.jpg



3) It is on this exact moment that Bismarck fired her first salvo ( Vollsalve ) and the photographer PK Josef Lagemann took the photo and after correctly captioned it for the Bundesarchiv donation.


Now all shoudl be more easy to be realized for everybody, ... and finally clear.


Bye Antonio
This is from the Bundesarchiv:

http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/cross-s ... h[focus]=5
original title

Text information that was originally on or with the
picture.

Hint: The original title is shown to the full extent!
Especially documents from the fonds »Bild 101
Propagandakompanien der Wehrmacht« and »Bild
183 ADN« may contain ideologically influenced texts
which sometimes don't honestly describe the
document's content or the original situation.

See also »Archive title and »Short tile.
The above disclaimer can be read by placing the mouse cursor over the exclamation point on the photo webpage.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by dunmunro » Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:59 pm

Jasper and Schmalenbach's entries in the PE War Diary:
Jasper:

About 0445 hours [0545 GMT] I was awakened by an "Alarm". The 2nd Artillery Officer
[Kapitänleutnant Paul Schmalenbach] was present in the foretop, the battle station watch-leader
of the portside watch of the battle station watch. A quick transfer [of command] and a panoramic
view around the horizon revealed three targets to port, two of which were approaching rapidly.
Off the starboard stern stood a fourth target, apparently, the surveillance cruiser from the
previous night. We were advancing at the front of the battle-line, with Bismarck behind us.

Since no special instructions for division of fire were ordered by the flagship, [underlined and
comment in margin by Brinkmann] and both ships were rapidly approaching from port and at
that instant opened fire while under full steam, I chose to cut to the proper course [myself]. This
was toward the foremost ship in the hostile battle-line, which, according to the usual rules of
engagement for distribution of targets, appeared to be the point ship in our line of fire. [Illegible
remark by Brinkmann in margin].

I did not recognize the opponents as battleships, and until the conclusion [of the battle] I
considered them as being cruisers (under consideration, according to my memory or experience
"Exeter", "Birmingham", or "Fiji" Class).1) Accordingly, I decided to use high explosive basefuzed
shells. I persisted in using this type of projectile during the [entire] course of the battle,
since their impacts differentiated them very well from other hits. The impacts stood out clearly
as high white water columns amid innumerable clouds of explosive smoke that obviously came
from the intermediate artillery of the Bismarck

The bearing range-finding station reported 2 contacts off the right bow bearing 20º [2 Dez.] at 25
knots, distance 210 hectometers [21,000 meters]. I received "permission to fire" from the bridge
at 0455 hours and immediately commenced firing a full salvo at 202 hectometers [20,200
meters]. The full [8-gun] salvo was fired using nose fuzed rounds which were stored behind the
gun barrels as ready-to-use ammunition. The observable impacts [shell splashes] could not be
ascribed with certainty as belonging to our own [shells] because of [key punch] perforation
failures in the firing calculator [and thus no range correction report could be made]. Therefore, I
repeated [firing] a full salvo, which turned out to be observable and formed a straddle ladder of
which I could only observe two brief impacts from the lower limiting [rounds of the] salvo, while
the higher and middle [rounds] had to be called questionably too far. The distant impacts were
not visible, since they were concealed by the target. By contrast, [after firing] the bracketing
group an extraordinarily bright fire flash appeared on the enemy ship's aft section at the level of
the aft mast. The fire developed on the portside of the opponent, since the superstructures
stood out as sharp silhouettes. Immediately thereafter I received the order from the ship's
command to "Change target to the left" toward the second opponent [the Prince of Wales],
whereby the fire of "Bismarck" and "Prinz Eugen" now crossed. I was unable to observe
"Bismarck's" decisive salvo because I was no longer in a position to do so. I ordered the
targeting officer [target designator] to acquire the second target and thus lost the first [target]
from the [range finder's] visual field of action. Consequently, I did not perceive the detonation of the first target [Hood]

As was the case earlier, I commenced the second firing with a full salvo followed by a ranging
group [straddle ladder] which zeroed me in as of 0559.
Firing for effect was then initiated. The
distance at that time was 160 -170 hectometers [16,000-17,000 meters]. During the completion
of ranging fire’s effectiveness, I observed two well-placed simultaneous portside strikes which
again were fired by the secondary artillery of the "Bismarck". At around the 8th salvo, the
opponent turned at first hard toward (us).

(Approximately 0601 hours). Immediately thereafter, I saw the long bow section of a sinking
ship traversing behind the opponent, pointing about 45° skyward and extending far above the
masts of the target. The opponent apparently tried to avoid the wreckage of the leading ship
[Vordermann = man in front].
During this phase of the battle indications of a small fire were
recognizable on the enemy ship, but it was considerably weaker than [was the case] onboard
the first opponent . During this time I observed a covering salvo from Bismarck's heavy artillery,
who had changed target. Immediately thereafter, the opponent turned hard onto a reciprocal
course. He gave off black smoke and apparently tried to use this to escape from view. In my
opinion, this smoke was artificial black fog and did not emanate from a real conflagration.



Schmalenbach


My initial observation from there was that the leading ship [Hood] opened fire on the Prinz
Eugen with a salvo from its forward turret group. It could be clearly recognized that both forward
turrets were aimed at us. Also, the ship had turned somewhat to port, and now I recognized two
very closely spaced stacks standing side-by-side. The ship's aft section was hard to distinguish,
as was the aft mast, and thus I was not certain of its type. I definitively identified the lead ship as
"Hood" only after I saw the sinking ship's bow section, with its especially distinctive stem, which
was briefly visible [before it sank]. "Hood" had fired 4 or 5 salvos by the time Bismarck and we
anwered her fire. Until then, I did not observe [shell splashes from] the shots being fired against
us except for 2 impacts [that landed] forward of the portside (approximately 100 meters in front
of the stem and about 50 meters laterally from the amidships line of the near side). Shortly after
the impacts of a salvo from Bismarck (I cannot explain it in any other way because of the rapid
sequence of impacts on the opponent to the right as well as the change in the color and height
of the impacts), a salvo from Prinz Eugen was delivered, which, according to my observations
through large binoculars, caused a conflagration in the vicinity of the aft mast.
Before further hits were made, the source of fire rapidly spread to an estimated length of 15 meters.
Oberleutnant zuz See Tilleßen, who stood next to me, spontaneously uttered the same opinion. A few
seconds (3-5) transpired between the salvo's impact and the absolutely instantaneous initiation
of the described conflagration. I deem it as very probable, nearly certain, that the above
mentioned salvo was from Prinz Eugen [and that it] caused the conflagration. A few seconds
later, a salvo from Bismarck hit the ship aft, and that resulted in an explosion of massive
consequence.


The explosion cloud hovered with yellowish-white luminescence above the [Hood's] aft turret
group. Several chunks of small and large size debris swirled about. A particularly noticeable
flaming component was propelled abaft, where it lay for some time [while] burning and fuming
strong black smoke. Probably, fuel was ignited on the water's surface. Within the detonation
cloud itself one could see exploding ammunition that blew sky-high and in all directions like
white stars. I believe that the [Hood's] forward turret fired one last salvo after the actual
explosion. With certainty, I observed that Hood fired only against Prinz Eugen, because this
could have been readily recog nized, based on the minimal battle distance, if the turrets had
been pointed more aft toward Bismarck. Hood sank very rapidly and stern first, with the bow
section rising so high (from the water) that the (entire) distinctive stem could be seen. The
forward turrets, and also the bridge and stacks, were still standing, as far as one could
recognize them through the intermittent smoke. The ship sank on nearly a southerly course. I
did not make further observations of the Hood because a change of target order was given for
the engagement of the heavy flak. (According to testimony from other officers, the "Hood" raised
herself and pointed 40° upward ). It seemed to me that she had a list to port. I estimate that
"Hood" expended about 10 salvos.
So we have Jasper acquiring Hood as a target, firing several salvos, then firing one last salvo, whose aftermath he does not observe because he has been ordered to switch targets to PoW. However Jasper tells us that he then fires two salvos at PoW and that by 0559 he is on target, so by definition the last salvo 20.3cm fired against Hood was fired at 0557-0558.

Now Schmalenbach picks up the story because he was able to see the fall of PEs last salvo and that a few seconds after it fell Hood was hit by the fatal 38cm salvo was Bismarck. Therefore both Jasper and Schmalenbach's statements converge on the fatal hit arriving at 0558, or sooner.

Jasper's first view of the sinking Hood is at 0601 when PoW passes the wreck and so brings Hood again into his narrow field of view, and she already has her bow well in the air and is within a few seconds of disappearing. Clearly the fatal hit arrived several minutes prior to his 0601 observation, and that is supported by Schmalenbach's estimate that Hood fired 10 salvos before her fatal hit.

Dr Cadogan's well reasoned paper also supports this conclusion:

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrai ... adogan.pdf
Last edited by dunmunro on Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:04 pm

Hello everybody,
We are supposed to swallow the nonsensical notion that PoW and Hood both fired 5 or 6 salvos, with all the RN observers plainly stating that Bismarck replied within one minute of Hood's open fire, but in reality there was no reply from the KM ships ... it's truly mind boggling that anyone could accept that. It would have been the source of endless comment on the RN side, that they were firing salvo after salvo with no reply from the KM ships ... it just cannot have happened.
Tedd Briggs and the Baron wrote that years ago when they were still alive and nobody had nothing to complain about it and they even reported that into some documentaries.
Here we are now with someone that cannot accept it anymore.
Simply unbelievable to be read ... :shock:
The elevation of the 38cm guns appears to be lower in the first photo than in the 2nd. I suspect this may have been Bismarck firing earlier at the RN cruisers, or maybe even during training.
Old trials from R. Winklareth and Vic Dale, ... already demolished and demonstrated being wrong 15 years ago, ... someone better go back on this forum and read the explanations I have provided to them, ... but only after having studied the Prinz Eugen layout on the stern area during Op. Rheinubung, ... and having increased a bit his poor competences about it.
No way also in this case, ... another failed attempt.
Bundesarchiv photo disclaimer
So what ? We are not talking any political subject here in. This is prohibited in this forum in any form and direction.
Everybody is free to defend and express is own position, especially 77 years after the events.
I already wrote it, nobody should try to take advantage on anybody from a political stand point.
The photo caption is correct by PK J. Lagemann, and it can be read handwritten by him on the back of the photo.
So please visit the Bundesarchiv and realize it before trying to comment on it.
Also in this case, ... closed point.


The refusal to accept the reality is simply incredible, ... in this thread as well as in the other ones, ... the same story, ... :think:

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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by dunmunro » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:25 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:04 pm
Hello everybody,
We are supposed to swallow the nonsensical notion that PoW and Hood both fired 5 or 6 salvos, with all the RN observers plainly stating that Bismarck replied within one minute of Hood's open fire, but in reality there was no reply from the KM ships ... it's truly mind boggling that anyone could accept that. It would have been the source of endless comment on the RN side, that they were firing salvo after salvo with no reply from the KM ships ... it just cannot have happened.
Tedd Briggs and the Baron wrote that years ago when they were still alive and nobody had nothing to complain about it and they even reported that into some documentaries.
Here we are now with someone that cannot accept it anymore.
Simply unbelievable to be read ... :shock:

Roskill supports Bismarck opening fire within one minute of Hood.

Years ago we didn't have access to the large amounts of first hand data that we have now and which prevented close scrutiny of obviously flawed accounts. Briggs' was an 18 year old signalman who was not free to observe the battle. The Baron, by his own admission, had duties that prevented him from closely observing the battle.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by wadinga » Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:39 am

Hello Antonio,

So you are convinced of the infallibility and absolute veracity of the captions in Ersten Gefecht?
This is the reason why I agree with Lagemann caption ( F.O. Busch too ) that the Bismarck on the background was firing her first salvo ( Vollsalve )
Then you must also accept that facing p177 in Erste Gefechte which says it is "schlagen de Aufschlagen von Hood in der Nahe der Prinz Eugen ein" which you have consistently misrepresented as showing the last single gun salvo of the Prince of Wales.

Face it, your whole timetable is guesswork and your rigid photo identification is flawed. Which caption is wrong, which one will you discard? What makes the one you discard less accurate than the one you keep?

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:01 am

Hello everybody,

before declaring flawed or wrong somebody else work, ... one should be in condition ( and capable ) to provide a valid alternative of the work being done with at least the same level of evidence and supporting official documents.

When, on June 2003, I responded to somebody question in this forum that the photo NH 69727 reversed by Robert Winklareth was incorrectly showed and impossible, ... obviously I got immediately the reaction of R. Winklareth, ... but I had also a very good suggestion from Dr. G. Elder, ... that was telling me that until I was in condition to show the whole story of the Denmark Strait battle with the relative tracks, ... my " hypothesis " was not going to be in condition to challenge the Winklareth one.

We all know how it went ... :wink:

Now, I think it is the same story here, ... and also in other subjects, ... if someone has a different solution for the documents and re-constructions I am making, ... please be my guest, .... do the work and simply show it to us here in, ... so we can compare them.

NOTE : Do not try again to come here again with a Schmalenbach old battle map and try to challenge my 2005 work, ... in this way you are only showing that you would like to challenge my work, ... but you are not capable enough and consequently not in condition to do it.

By the way, ... I have an updated version of the 2005 work available of course, ... :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 )

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:40 am

Few little things regarding reliability of timing of PoW -- My problems with wording and timing

POW 05:37 Enemy sighted range 38000 Yard The rangefinders failed to develop a satisfactory range plot before opening fire
KTB PG enemy sighted at 05:50 at 30 km
obviously an excellent performance on the british side they saw the enemy 13 minutes erlier than the Germans saw the british ships.

when the expected gunrange was 26500 the target was overshoot by about 1000 Yards, I suspect the first sighting distance should be corrected beeing at least 1000 yards lower

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POW 05:37 Enemy sighted range 38000
Open fire 05:53 gun range 26500 The rangefinders failed to develop a satisfactory range plot before opening fire


It takes 15 min to close the distance by about 11000 Yards????!!!! (rangefinder range must be greater then gun range due to the closing of the ships.

I would say there is something wrong with at least this time as time difference appears as incomprehensible based on the approximative approach speed of the fleets of about 1450 m/min (~1600 Yards per Minute)

My comment 05:47 appears more likely than 05:37 for the first sighting


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF FORMS S.1146 (f)
First Action / total time [min sec] 08:58
POW plot 1 shows open fire 05:53 gun range about 26500 Yards
Last salvo 06:03 under local control

lenght of action differ from the summary !!!! by one !!! Minute ;) not considering fractions
British colleagues can not write off logs, wich were (obviously) detailed to the second ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
first plot state
05:53 opening fire
05:56 Hood out of Action

second plot (from 20.08.41)
05:53 opening fire (-remain unmodified )
06:00 Hood sunk (comment not detonation)

the timing difference between Plot 1 05:56 Hood out of Action and Plot 2 06:00 Hood sunk
corresponds with the Interrogations showing a time between detonation and sinking of about 3 minutes.

OR
Does does the wording "Hood sunk" 06:00 shows its Detonation at this time according to the the interogations wich explicitely state the Detonation was at 06.00 and that was the start of the 3 minute sinking.

In my humble opinion the wording " [time] sunk " shows the process of sinking has been completed. Otherwise it shoulds be used as "ship sinking"

We can see a clearly unclear wording regarding the sinking of Hood and possibly a synchronisation of the Timing of the Events but not completely.


PG War diary state 06:01 Hood detonated (and sunk therafter)

That means the 150 degrees or so turn of POW cannot be startet earlier according german time. On the contrary POW had to dodge at first the remains by a starboard movement. And ther was usually considerable lag between rudder setting and start of the turning supposedly 15 - 30 seconds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me at least Bismarck and POW had different board times. Possibly by about 4-5 minutes
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Jun 29, 2018 11:58 am

Hello everybody,

@ Thorsten Wahl,

your questions drives me back 15 years at least, ... and I perfectly understand all your above doubts.

Determining few sure milestones and some reliable time references was the first think I felt the need to do when I had on my hands all this material so confusing on the 2 different sides of the battle and with few common data.

Regarding you above points I suggest you to read McMullen/Skipwith letter to Sir Kennedy if you have not done it yet, that will explain you very well what happened on board PoW with the initial ranges taken.

Here it is :

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


Into the Imperial War Museum there are also the 2 BBC interviews to McMullen ( PoW Gunnery Officer ) and to Skipwith ( PoW Officer spotting ); be careful because Skipwith was renamed Skipworth at the IWM.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/

Regarding the timing, I suggest you to read carefully Jasper ( PG Gunnery Officer ) and Hunter-Terry ( PoW Officer - Hood First Board ), ... I do not want to drive any conclusion in a preconceived way from my side, ... but just telling you who at the end of my 6 months careful analysis, ... I found reliable enough to become my timing reference milestones in order to initially synchronize the 2 sides of this battle.

Here is Hunter_Terry :

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... .htm#Terry

For Jasper I assume you know his report is contained into the Prinz Eugen Kriegstagebuch KTB :

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/resource.htm

and here :

http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/index.html

If you need any help ... just feel free to ask me.

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 )

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:07 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:00 pm
Hello everybody,

@ Thorsten Wahl,


Prinz_Eugen_aft_turret_firing.jpg



Bye Antonio
Turret D is trained nearly 90 degrees it should be about 45 degrees forward to fit the early time.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:05 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Thorsten Wahl,

YES, you are right, it was just an example to show the smoke leaving the main guns.

Here a 15 years old map I made for the German open fire, ... showing Prinz Eugen at 20.200 meters ( 202 hm ) from Hood and Bismarck on the same moment at 20.800 meters ( 208 hm ), .. just as you have correctly highlighted.
Map01.jpg
Map01.jpg (51.36 KiB) Viewed 1549 times
You can see the correct firing angle of the Prinz Eugen main turrets ( 20° ahead of the beam ) while on course 220°.

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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by dunmunro » Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:06 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:05 pm
Hello everybody,

@ Thorsten Wahl,

YES, you are right, it was just an example to show the smoke leaving the main guns.

Here a 15 years old map I made for the German open fire, ... showing Prinz Eugen at 20.200 meters ( 202 hm ) from Hood and Bismarck on the same moment at 20.800 meters ( 208 hm ), .. just as you have correctly highlighted.

Map01.jpg

You can see the correct firing angle of the Prinz Eugen main turrets ( 20° ahead of the beam ) while on course 220°.

Bye Antonio
Bismarck (presumably Lutjens) stated via radio transmission:
...Running battle between 208 and 180 hm [20.8 and 18 Km]. Opponent “Hood”
concentrates fire on “Bismarck”. After 5 minutes, “Hood” is destroyed by an explosion;
thereafter, change of target to “King George” who then turns away in black smoke caused by
definitively observed hits... (War Diary page 149).
20.8 and 180hm = 22750 and 19700 yds. The approximate time for Bismarck's 19700 yd range to Hood is 0557:30, so Bismarck's statement of engagement ranges is a decidedly double edged sword. It certainly doesn't support the most probable ranges for Hood to Bismarck at 0600 using PoW's salvo chart as a time reference.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2754
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:10 pm

Hello everybody,

as per Bismarck KTB, 208 hm is the Bismarck open fire estimated distance and this distance is compatible with a timing between 5:55:00 or 5:55:30 (for sure NOT 5:53), according to PoW salvo plot... :negative:

180 hm is Bismarck cease fire against PoW at 6:09 and it is perfectly in line with the battle reconstruction of Antonio... :lol:

Good luck for next try !


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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by dunmunro » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:56 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:10 pm
Hello everybody,

as per Bismarck KTB, 208 hm is the Bismarck open fire estimated distance and this distance is compatible with a timing between 5:55:00 or 5:55:30 (for sure NOT 5:53), according to PoW salvo plot... :negative:

180 hm is Bismarck cease fire against PoW at 6:09 and it is perfectly in line with the battle reconstruction of Antonio... :lol:

Good luck for next try !


Bye, Alberto
I read Bismarck's ranges as referring to engaging Hood but in any event I cannot find a reference to that range between Bismarck and PoW at 0609. It is not supported by PoW's salvo chart nor either of PEs.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2754
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:26 pm

Hello everybody,

everybody is free to read any document in the way he wants. :think: However, the KTB is quite clear (there is a full stop between the ranges and the sentence regarding Hood firing at Bismarck).....

BS_KTB_ranges.jpg
BS_KTB_ranges.jpg (12.01 KiB) Viewed 1440 times
BS_KTB_ranges_eng.jpg
BS_KTB_ranges_eng.jpg (10.94 KiB) Viewed 1440 times

All these ranges are in line with Antonio's battlemap and reconstruction at 5:55 and at 6:09.


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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...

Post by dunmunro » Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:41 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:26 pm



All these ranges are in line with Antonio's battlemap and reconstruction at 5:55 and at 6:09.


Bye, Alberto
Which map are you referring to?

What data is it based upon?

Post Reply