Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3967
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:11 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "If Norfolk had closed to 9nm she would probably have been sunk by Bismarck."
Hi Duncan,
not at all, as demonstrated by Suffolk running at 9 sm (176 hectometers as per F.O.Busch or 18.000 yards as per Ellis autobiography) at around 5:30, before her turn away) and not being targeted.
Lutjens has to face two battleships (even before their clear identification, the 2 unknown ships were approaching at a rate and inclination that left few doubt as per their identity) and would have never wasted 15" ammunition to fire at the 2 known cruisers approaching at a very slow rate.
Bismarck and PE had fired a number of salvos at both cruisers on May 23. Neither Suffolk nor Norfolk could be so sanguine in the face of Bismarck's 38cm, 15cm and PE's 20.3cm guns, as you suggest.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1442
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:23 pm

@Antonio

Obviously there are two different opinions about point 17. You just have demonstrated your opinion and I've demonstrated mine. If your arguments are strong enough and you're sure all readers will choose your view you don't have to emphasize that you have demonstrated it for good. Or like Tywin Lannister would say:
Any man who must say, "I am the king" is no true king.
@Alberto

I assume you will probably ignore it, but at 05:41 the distance was 16 miles. Your drawing is wrong.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:31 pm

Dunmunro wrote: "Bismarck and PE had fired a number of salvos at both cruisers on May 23. Neither Suffolk nor Norfolk could be so sanguine in the face of Bismarck's 38cm, 15cm and PE's 20.3cm guns, as you suggest."
Hi Duncan,
yes, Bismarck tried to surprise the 2 cruiser on May 23, and to shake them off, but by May 24 morning, Suffolk was able to close to 9 sm without being shelled, that means also Norfolk could close range and be at 9.2 sm from enemy by 6:00 (as demonstrated by Antonio's map, built based on logged courses, reliable cross-bearings and evidences from both sides, in the absence of any valid alternative), HAD W-W wanted to join the battle. He just did not want: after all, his mission was.... shadowing..... :think:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:33 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"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: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:12 pm

Hello everybody,

@ all,

after our analysis on the Norfolk battle approach thanking the now available WW recorded interview, ... I agree with Alberto with his above statement :
He just did not want, after all his mission was.... shadowing.....
By the way, ... it is not only my personal opinion, and Alberto personal opinion, ... at least we have the Baron with us and as you can read also Capt. RN Russell Grenfell :
Grenfell_CS1_approach_0515.jpg
Grenfell_CS1_approach_0515.jpg (109.07 KiB) Viewed 720 times
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: 2105
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by wadinga » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:41 pm

Hello Alberto,

You just keep on doing it, don't you?
176 hectometers as per F.O.Busch
Busch does not say Suffolk, he does not say cruiser, he does not say ship, he says mast. incidentally why Busch cannot see a 10,000 ton cruiser at 9 miles but it is impossible to accept that W-W cannot see a battlecruiser at more than 16 miles I cannot understand.

So
Suffolk was able to close to 9 sm without being shelled
is quite incorrect. Neither Ellis nor the Baron think she was at 9 miles.

Hello Antonio, Please explain
my logical deduction,


Re:The destroyers were 45 miles behind W-W, what has that to do with smoke 16 miles ahead?

My answers.

1) Do you mean that just because some ships possibly associated with the ships which are 45 miles behind are not mentioned, that means they must be the source of the smoke 16 miles ahead?

2) This badly phrased verbal description is contradicted by the Ship's Log and the Action Report. Two sources outweigh one: therefore the verbal description is inaccurate. We have already identified W-W had a bad habit of applying hindsight. (Good job he was such a great Admiral. If he wrote thrillers instead he would blurt out the killer's name on page 10))

A) Debatable, a TOO signal 05:41 from BC1 or Mk 1 eyeball at about the same time. As you well know because you have seen the it at the PRO, but refuse to accept/believe his Action Report, it says:

8..... "At 05:41 Norfolk sighted the enemy at a distance of 16 miles, at about the same time as she was reported by Hood and PoW".
9 At this time Suffolk was approximately 15 miles fine on the starboard quarter of the enemy. Very shortly after Hood and PoW were identified and seen to be closing the enemy."

This is clear, concise, non contradictory and conforms with the Ship's Log.


B) See above.

C) See above.

Just realised the truth about:
this we knew must be the Hood and the Prince of Wales
That cunning old fox Frederic Wake-Walker :clap: . He knew a BBC interview would be intercepted, sooner or later, by the Germans, so he deliberately worded his observation to create the impression that an all-seeing infallible, Admiralty was providing all the ships at sea with absolutely peerless intelligence, instead of actually revealing he was charging around the ocean with no idea where reinforcements might come from. He certainly pulled the wool over some people's eyes. :wink: Of course, in his Top Secret Action Report he told the plain, unvarnished truth. That he had no idea was where BC1 was, until he saw him.

Now your turn: how far NW of Norfolk were Icarus and Achates at 04:45?

If "side taken hooligan" means continually refuting baseless allegations against these officers, accusation of falsifying reports/maps, continual misreporting of witnesses (Busch) etc I will wear the badge with pride :angel:

However, I consider I am prudently testing an outlandish, unproven theory against accepted, reliable facts in the most responsible manner possible.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:31 pm

Wadinga wrote: "Busch does not say Suffolk, he does not say cruiser, he does not say ship, he says mast."
Hi Sean,
yes, he says a mast on bearing 15° at 176 hectometers. He also says the other enemies are on bearing 96° (Norfolk) and 157° (BC1) and these are perfectly matching the bearings taken from Norfolk and from Hood/PoW.
Now, as we cannot imagine that another ship was in between Bismarck and Suffolk, the third enemy bearing is the Suffolk and the distance is related to Suffolk as well... in other words, the mast "must be" the Suffolk..... :wink:

Also, this perfectly matches Ellis autobiography stating that the distance before the engagement was around 18.000 yards.

In any case, as I already said several times, if you don't like the latest reconstruction from Antonio, you can provide an alternative one.


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: 3967
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by dunmunro » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:27 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wadinga wrote: "Busch does not say Suffolk, he does not say cruiser, he does not say ship, he says mast."
Hi Sean,
yes, he says a mast on bearing 15° at 176 hectometers. He also says the other enemies are on bearing 96° (Norfolk) and 157° (BC1) and these are perfectly matching the bearings taken from Norfolk and from Hood/PoW.
Now, as we cannot imagine that another ship was in between Bismarck and Suffolk, the third enemy bearing is the Suffolk and the distance is related to Suffolk as well... in other words, the mast "must be" the Suffolk..... :wink:

Also, this perfectly matches Ellis autobiography stating that the distance before the engagement was around 18.000 yards.

In any case, as I already said several times, if you don't like the latest reconstruction from Antonio, you can provide an alternative one.


Bye, Alberto
A&A seem to think that W-W and Lutjens had a written agreement that Bismarck and PE would not fire upon W-W's cruisers on the morning of 24 May 1941. Apparently Ellis didn't get that memo and did a 360d turn to open the range. The Baron who was stationed in Bismarck's after director and had access to a 10m RF failed to see Suffolk at the claimed ~18k yds from Bismarck.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:54 am

Hi all,
apparently it's difficult for someone here to understand that, being confronted to 2 British battleships, already heard/sighted, Lutjens could NOT direct his main armament to the 2 British cruisers, that had at least from 5:16 (if not from 4:45) to prepare themself for the fight.
We all know Lutjens used "unconventional tactics" but having engaged Norfolk or Suffolk at 5:41 instead of aiming the guns at the Hood, would have been a nonsense. :stop:

Of course , as W-W candidly said in the recently discussed interview (even if it was related to he night "shadowing"):
"4) 00.48 seconds ... there is always a danger running at the enemy, ... at a close range ... "

and to this heroic consideration of a flag officer during wartime, I have frankly nothing to oppose. :lol:

Thanks to Antonio's reconstructed battlemap, and to W_W interview, correlated with the subsequent adjustments in his official report and to Tovey despatches, we have now a new confirmation of the "embellishment" work needed to be able to celebrate the victory (without an "annoying" comparison of the German heavy cruiser behavior with the 2 British ones)......


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: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:08 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

basically you do not have any other credible different way to logically understand how WW could have realized what he declared, ... not having like me the Icarus message text ... and you are trying to resolve the matter by defining him an " old Fox " intentionally releasing badly phrased verbal descriptions.

A very " Bizantine " way to resolve the matter from your side, ... he was an idiot releasing imaginary incorrect declarations, ... while trying to play smart.

His report is false, ... just like " The Plot ", ... and Adm Tovey dispatches, ... especially the points 17 and 19, ... as well demonstrated already.

I will not comment further more, ... everybody can realize the situation by simply reading the post's above.

Not having the Icarus message, we cannot realize how far behind she was on that moment from Norfolk.

What we know is that Icarus message was received and somebody used its content, ... and we only know the outcomes of that analysis, ... and this is the truth, ... either you like it or not.

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: 2105
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by wadinga » Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:36 pm

Hello Antonio,

I am disappointed you show so little interest in the whereabouts of Icarus since I thought that would help establish how big the "vicinity" is, and a reason for W-W to guess the unidentified smoke 16 miles ahead is something to do with some other ships . :?

Interestingly my estimate of only 45 miles NE is probably low. Reviewing Flagship Hood by Alan Coles and Ted Briggs, the latter recalled being picked up by Electra nearly 4 hours after Hood was sunk. They write:
Wake-Walker in the Norfolk, who had taken over as Senior Officer, signalled them [the destroyers at TOO 06:37], to turn south and hunt for survivors around Hood's last reported position, which was sixty miles away
My italics. Since Icarus was capable of similar speed to Electra but turned up some time afterwards to rescue survivors, it follows she was probably more than 60 miles astern NE of Hood's sinking position at 06:00. Since we have assumed the destroyers independently received Suffolk's 02:47 sighting and turned SW, she was probably 60 miles plus NE of W-W at 04:45.

Ted Briggs' estimate of nearly four hours is probably an overestimate as David Mearns says he was picked up some time shortly after 07:45. Mearns says that Icarus and the other destroyers turned up around 09:00.

Also recounted in Coles and Briggs is a sighting from Electra, as she raced to the rescue:
A sliver of smoke was seen by a look-out, which raised hopes of finding the Hood still afloat, but this turned out to be a solitary merchantman who had straggled away from a convoy and was scurrying home.
This discounts the frankly ridiculous contention that any smoke seen around 05:16 by Wake-Walker must be the BCF. That Grenfell falls into the same trap of unwittingly applying hindsight is not really surprising, although the "gladsome sight" is appreciated on both cruisers' bridges apparently simultaneously, which could only happen around 05:50. It would very strange if the "joyful and fascinated satisfaction" had started aboard Norfolk at 05:16, but they only remembered to record why in the Ship's log at 05:50.

Your contention that Wake-Waker's Action Report, Ellis' Action Report, Captain Luce's Ship's Log, Pinchin's Plan and Tovey's Report are all falsified remains unproven.

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:11 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

given my little interest on realizing the truth about those ships real positions during that night :
Electra_0700_04.jpeg
Electra_0700_04.jpeg (88 KiB) Viewed 631 times
Please tell me where you can find something more precise than the above map.

Not to mention :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6323

You wrote :
Your contention that Wake-Waker's Action Report, Ellis' Action Report, Captain Luce's Ship's Log, Pinchin's Plan and Tovey's Report are all falsified remains unproven.
I invite you to go back and study again last years threads on this subject, even if I know you will never accept it, no matter what.

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: 1442
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Herr Nilsson wrote: @Alberto

I assume you will probably ignore it, but at 05:41 the distance was 16 miles.
Norfolk sailing 32 knots:
32 kn.jpg
32 kn.jpg (108.27 KiB) Viewed 577 times
Norfolk sailing 30 knots:
30 kn.jpg
30 kn.jpg (103.42 KiB) Viewed 577 times
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:22 pm

Hi all,
thanks to Antonio's work, this is the only available battlemap (an evolution of 2005 Antonio's map) as per today (if we exclude Pinchin's Plot, already demonstrated as intentionally incorrect). This map has been published on "Storia Militare" n.281 in 2017, after being checked by worldwide known naval expert. I'm sorry the map is not usable here due to its dimensions (2,5 Mbytes) but in case anybody wants it, I can send to friends, to a mail address, as already proposed. Please send me a private message, if interested.
fig.4_Map_20mm_1_Kilometer_reduced.jpg
fig.4_Map_20mm_1_Kilometer_reduced.jpg (86.76 KiB) Viewed 571 times
If anyone has an alternative map, showing ALL ships and respecting ALL cross-bearings, I (and I guess Antonio) will be happy to discuss, else Norfolk was at 11,6 sm from Bismarck at 6:00 and she could have been at 9,2 just sailing a straight course from 5:16 at 30.5 knots (or less than 9 sm moving at 31.5 knots) as per the snapshot already posted here.
Norfolk_straight_course_2.jpg
Norfolk_straight_course_2.jpg (90.58 KiB) Viewed 571 times
All other nice drawings, NOT containing all ships, NOT respecting all the cross bearings (including the ones between Norfolk and ALL other ships) and taking into account only partial inputs (like a very debatable distance measured with the WWII limited precision instruments), are totally useless in this discussion.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 1442
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:32 pm

I'm afraid Wake-Walker didn't have the "Storia Militare" map but had to make his decisions on the basis of the distances "measured with the WWII limited precision instruments".
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:57 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

the fact that many thought they were at a certain distance, ... and reported it on their radio messages and documents too, ... at different stage anyhow and with different intentions, ... does not mean that they really where at that distance on reality.

Following the same logic we should take also for granted the 20.000 yards declared, depicted and mostly even signed by RearAdm Wake-Walker at the first Hood board too, ... together with some Norfolk Officers too.

Since we do know many distances have been measured with a lot of appreciation, ... with lot of tolerances even using old fashioned rangefinders, ... we must evaluate them with the benefit of our verification wherever possible, ... mostly cross checking them with our available bearings, ... that define once cross checked the relative distances one ship to another with a lot less tolerances, especially when taken on a large period of time knowing also the ship speed and course, ... their fall of shot, ... straddle, ... after having fired for example.

Only making a complete map one realize what is possible, ... from what is simply not possible, ... and what was later simply invented just for an immediate need of a justification.

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 )

Post Reply