Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:05 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto believe me you have no worries as regards your English, I am extremely gratefully you post in my language as my Italian is poor, my German better.

Logically we can say that WW thought that BC1 was in the area at 05.16 but not it's next moves nor the next moves of BS and PG. If BC1 was approaching the exact direction of its interception was also still unknown as was the disposition of the enemy. To continue to close the enemy until sighted makes sense as you now actually know one where one piece is not where it is thought to be. To run parallel until BC1 is sighted also makes sense if you want to know where all the chesspieces where on the board, it is as logical as anything else? He did not know for sure Bismarck's next move.

As for her top speed I can't speculate what she was possibly capable of I can only state what she reported her top speed was in her log. All ships had an overload capacity, 30.2 might have been that overload, the mean rpm for this was 287-288 rpm. Up to 06.00 Norfolk covered 30.0nm and had a mean 284.7rpm averaged over the hour and so matches her full speed figures, this is not my opinion it is what the log records and I can't find a higher recorded speed anywhere in that log so far.

Hello Herr Nilsson I hope you are well, your opinion, as is Alberto's is important to me! I try hard not (but often still fail) to speculate, so can only say I agree the fact is Norfolk did not turn away or increase the range at any point until 06.12 when there appears a curve away and back.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2103
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by wadinga » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:22 pm

All,

We have discussed the acceleration characteristics of County Class cruisers before. The generation of the additional steam pressure to generate the last knot of utmost speed takes a significant amount of time, maybe as much as an hour, maybe longer. Hence the familiar expression "working up to maximum speed". The idea that some additional burst of power can be instantaneously released to increase speed noticeably in a ten minute period is pure fantasy. In fact the sharp turn at 06:00 dissipated speed.

Also please can everyone remember than although Norfolk's log records distance covered in each hour to a tenth of a knot, there is no reliability about that distance covered. The huge D/R errors generated in Suffolk (30 miles) and in the German ships (90 miles) are in part due to the 1941 inability to accurately measure speed through the water, and also speed of the water mass over the ground.

Whilst we are discussing ship's logs, Cag -can I ask you whether you accept the assertion by Antonio and Alberto that the BBC interview proves that the smoke seen at 05:16 was BC1 and that W-W knew it then, or do you believe as I do, that the log entry and W-W's report overwhelm this sketchy observation, and that the first CS1 knew of its identity was as he actually reported?

If as Ted Briggs and Alan Coles assert, the ships which might possibly have been somewhere near Electra are 60 miles astern and Norfolk is indeed sailing faster than either Hood or PoW could go, away from them why would W-W imagine the smoke ahead of him is BC1?

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 22, 2017 4:28 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson

you wrote :
" He ( RearAdm Wake-Walker ) turned to port ( the Norfolk ) to OPEN range" is therefore somewhat exaggerated.
He did not open range but he was approaching.
I know my opinion - in contrast to other members opinions - is not important by nature, but in my opinion this course was the best W-W could do until the commecement of action to keep all options open to react depending on what the Germans would do.


Your opinion is important like everybody else here into, ... so it is well taken.

What I can realize from your statements above is that basically you are telling, ... with a little bit different course track analysis, ... the final same story.

He did not OPEN, ... but he was approaching in your opinion, ... very carefully I should notice and add, ... a very slowly approaching manoeuvre.

This was the best he could do until " ... the commencement of action to keep all options open to react depending on what the Germans would do ".

That is the final outcome of his actions, ... no matter what, ... as the Baron noticed and we are underlining, ... and you realized too, ... he took time and waited the development of the events, ... both the enemy ones as well as the BC1 ones, ...

... very carefully and slowly approaching, ... surely not at the full speed he did not ordered, ... and not ready to open fire as soon as it was in his possibilities, ... since it was not his intention, ... on that particular moment.

As simple as that, ... just as he described on his interview ... not knowing when BC1 was going to engage, ... even if he knew they were there since 05:16 and saw them closing the enemy and realized the " Enemy in sight ! " ... he just waited to see the events.

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: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:02 pm

Hi All

Hello Wadinga hope you are well, I'm not sure what Wake-Walker knew about the disposition of other ships around him. The navigation errors made by both German and British ships mean everything is estimated.

The smoke seen at 05.16 on the port bow is described in part 8 of his report dated 5th June as "which later proved to be the battlecruisers". However his taped interview (whenever it was made) suggests he assumed it was BC1. I understand your point that he could not be 100% certain and so would naturally continue to close the enemy until he sighted something recognisable.

Hi Antonio may I humbly say I'm afraid as with Alberto and the 'opening out of range' comment your 'very slowly approaching' comment is also unfair,. The only facts we have is from her log and Norfolk averaged 284.7rpm over the hour (compared to her highest recorded 288) which would not suggest a leisurely approach? Norfolk headed directly toward the enemy just after 05.50.

Best wishes
Cag.

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 22, 2017 8:05 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

you wrote :
Hi Antonio may I humbly say I'm afraid as with Alberto and the 'opening out of range' comment your ' very slowly approaching ' comment is also unfair. The only facts we have is from her log and Norfolk averaged 284.7rpm over the hour (compared to her highest recorded 288) which would not suggest a leisurely approach ? Norfolk headed directly toward the enemy just after 05.50.
You are realizing exactly what I stated above : " Norfolk headed directly toward the enemy just after 05.50 ".

They realized at 05:16 that BC1 were the warships approaching on their port bow SW ( WW interview own declaration ), they knew the enemy was higher on their NW direction, due to the bearings they were getting from the Suffolk when radio transmitting, ... they heard the " Enemy in sight ! " radio messages frm both PoW and Hood starting from at 05:37, ... and they saw BC1 closing on the enemy from 05:38.

Bottom line :

1) What Norfolk did from 05:16 until 05:41 ? --> Nothing but kept speed at 30 knots and course of 240°.

2) What Norfolk did from 05:41 until 05:50 ? --> Altered course from 240° to 220° doing a slow progressive course alteration to port, whit a large arc, from an interception course to a parallel enemy course.

3) What Norfolk did from 05:50 until 05:55 ? --> Kept course 220, parallel to the enemy, °and speed at 30 knots.

4) What Norfolk did from 05:55 until 06:00 ? --> According to " The Plot " they turned toward the enemy from course 220° to course 270°, without opening fire, still at 30 knots.

5) What Norfolk did after 06:00 ? --> Turned away, from 270° to 220°, without opening fire, neither to help PoW.
Norfolk_straight_course_2.jpg
Norfolk_straight_course_2.jpg (90.58 KiB) Viewed 1102 times
Do you agree or do you have a different way to read the available maps ?

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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by dunmunro » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:33 pm

Cag wrote:Hi All

Hi Alberto, no problem whatsoever I fully understand what you are saying and accept all of your viewpoints as always. I know you do the same, for me these are stumbling blocks I can't work out as of yet.

I just have questions, I try to see this Machiavellian dastardly plot to hide truth or cover up supposed wrong doings to stop courts martial. But Wake-Walker was shadowing Bismarck and Prinz Eugen, who having already altered course may, at any time or on sight of more British ships, have turned away, doubled back or headed straight for the new unknown threat or toward Norfolk itself.

We have the gift of hindsight, Wake-Walker did not have the gift of foresight, therefore he had to cover all scenarios, once BC1 was spotted and their position on the battlefield confirmed, Norfolk's plot shows she turned toward Bismarck, her log shows she was at full speed from 05.00 to 06.00 (page 1 of her log gives a table of distances travelled at all speeds, economical, various natures of despatch and full speed. At full speed 30.0nm per hour was travelled at .97 tons of fuel burnt per nm.).

These are my stumbling blocks and I am trying to see how to resolve them.

As always best wishes
Cag.
The nominal full power specific fuel consumption of the County class cruisers was .8lb/shp.

30nm x .97tons/hr = 29.1 tons of fuel = 65184lb of fuel /.8 = 81480shp. Norfolk achieved 81914shp on deep load full power trials in 1930 but at 306.9rpm due to her lighter displacement and clean bottom at that time.

W-W was pushing Norfolk to her limits as Norfolk had very little excess speed over Bismarck, and was somewhat slower than PE. Closing in on Bismarck to effective 8in gun range in daylight was tantamount to suicide unless Bismarck was heavily engaged because if Bismarck turned and pursued Norfolk, it would take hours for Norfolk to withdraw beyond effective 38cm range.

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 22, 2017 9:24 pm

Dunmunro wrote: " if Bismarck turned and pursued Norfolk....., "
Hi Duncan,
are you serious saying there was a risk that Bismarck turned to pursue Norfolk being confronted to 2 British battleships ? :negative:

you wrote: "W-W was pushing Norfolk to her limits as Norfolk had very little excess speed over Bismarck"
if 30.2 knots was her max full speed, she had no speed advantage at all and Bismarck could have chased her at any time.....From the PG photos analysis, we see Bismarck was exceeding 30-31 knots closing the gap to PG (28 knots) by almost 1000 meters in less than 10 minutes....

IMHO Norfolk was pushed to her limits neither for 2 hours (at 30.2 knots) during the night (why to do so at that time?) nor from 5:16 till 6:00 at 30 knots (while W-W was either blindly following the "fighting instructions" or anyway thinking that "there is always a danger running at the enemy, ... at a close range ..." (as per W-W interview). :oops:


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: 3966
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by dunmunro » Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:04 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: " if Bismarck turned and pursued Norfolk....., "
Hi Duncan,
are you serious saying there was a risk that Bismarck turned to pursue Norfolk being confronted to 2 British battleships ? :negative:

you wrote: "W-W was pushing Norfolk to her limits as Norfolk had very little excess speed over Bismarck"
if 30.2 knots was her max full speed, she had no speed advantage at all and Bismarck could have chased her at any time.....From the PG photos analysis, we see Bismarck was exceeding 30-31 knots closing the gap to PG (28 knots) by almost 1000 meters in less than 10 minutes....

IMHO Norfolk was pushed to her limits neither for 2 hours (at 30.2 knots) during the night (why to do so at that time?) nor from 5:16 till 6:00 at 30 knots (while W-W was either blindly following the "fighting instructions" or anyway thinking that "there is always a danger running at the enemy, ... at a close range ..." (as per W-W interview). :oops:


Bye, Alberto
There is speed on trials with a clean bottom, new machinery and lighter than service full load and there is full speed at full war load, foul bottom and worn machinery. The two speeds don't often coincide with one another.


The great fear on Norfolk and Suffolk was that Bismarck and PE would turn north at high speed and attempt to withdraw from the trap that W-W and Holland had prepared for them. It seems likely that if Lutjens had better intel regarding BC1's composition and proximity that he would have done exactly that.

User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by paulcadogan » Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:48 am

Hi guys,

Consider this regarding Norfolk's actions up to 0555:

Kill all hindsight. Put yourself on Norfolk's bridge at 0535.

You are steaming alone on course 240. You cannot see your consort Suffolk, some distance to starboard based on your DF bearings. You believe the enemy is somewhere on your starboard bow. You have been observing smoke on your port bow since 0516, which you might think could possibly be your big ships (BC1) that you had deduced from Icarus' signal were "in the vicinity". The advance of the smoke plumes suggest the ships are moving fast.

You receive a signal from PoW sent at 0537 "Enemy in sight - 1 battleship, 1 cruiser " with bearing and position. I would think that might strengthen your suspicion that the smoke on your port bow is indeed BC1, but the ships are still not visible, yet it appears they are in contact with the enemy that you still cannot see.

Then at about 0540 your own lookouts yell '" One battleship" in sight on your starboard bow...it is the ENEMY. If you can see him, he can see you. Your fighting instructions as a cruiser in a battleship engagement are to stay clear until the enemy is heavily engaged before joining in, unless of course, ordered otherwise.

You don't know what your superior officer, who is in Hood, is about to do, or if he might have specific orders for you. You send your sighting report at 0541.

What do you now do?

IMHO - you turn to close with your superior officer to sight him and get his orders if any, and prepare to join in the imminent action when the opportunity arises (as per the fighting instructions).

How do you do that? You alter course slightly to port to bring on visual contact with your superior officer in Hood, while still keeping the enemy in sight.

At 0544 comes the sighting report from Hood, confirming that it is indeed BOTH Hood and PoW in contact with the enemy. You continue to close with the smoke until it is almost dead ahead and at 0550 the ships come into sight. Your signalmen train their telescopes/binoculars on Hood for any signals. There are none.

Then at 0552:30 Hood opens fire, followed by PoW - their attack on the enemy has begun!

What is the enemy going to do? Will he fight or run? You continue to close with your flagship. The enemy opens fire and the action is joined. There is no sign of the enemy altering course. There is no signal from your flagship.

What do you do?

IMHO You turn hard to starboard to close with the "heavily engaged" enemy on your own initiative, to join in when in effective gun range as per your gunnery officer's determination.

That is EXACTLY what WW did.
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

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 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:10 am

Hello everybody,

@ Paul Cadogan,

I like very much your re-construction of the events, ... that basically like the majority of us is reaching the obvious conclusion that one way or the other ( slowly approaching or enlarging ) ... he just kept speed and course, ... sailing parallel to the enemy and moving toward the BC1 warships, ... and waited the events to develop further more, ... before engaging the enemy with his heavy cruiser.

None of us can state or write anything different, ... like I did for Norfolk opening fire with 3 salvoes on my 2005 work, ... because those are the real facts.

I like to remind you the Baron ( a direct witness ) description " ... the cruisers left the battlefield to Holland warships ", ... as well as Russel Grenfell ( surely collecting direct witnesses interviews before his 1948 book ) one : " ... they prepared to watch with joyful and fascinated satisfaction the outcome of their efforts in the shape of the destruction of the enemy " .

I intentionally avoid Sir L. Kennedy one, ... on Pursuit, ... because incorrectly choose Adm Tovey " smart " dispatches ( point 17 heavy cruiser distances out of range by more than 15 sea miles ) and added a direct responsibility of ViceAdm Holland because of the missing due orders being the cause of the missed possible engagement of the 2 heavy cruisers in the battle ( very unfair ).

Since I consider you a very fair and competent person, I like your opinion on the following points :

1) have you tried to realize the real distances of Suffolk and Norfolk on a real scale map, compared to BC1 and the enemy all along those hours ?

2) Did you realize that from 16 sea miles, even considering the different visibility on 2 different directions, in one case there was a direct enemy battleship vs cruiser perfect identification from 16 sea miles, ... in the other hand for more than half an hour somebody thinks he was unable to recognize BC1 warships from the same or less distance until 14 sea miles were reached ( even if we have now a direct WW admission he knew who they were since soon after 5 am, probably from 05:16 ).

3) Did you check Norfolk gunnery declared distances on a map with the Norfolk declared course and distances on " The Plot " and versus reality ?

4) Did you read and consider Capt Ellis biography and his own admission on where he was and what he could have done, ... in line with Busch and the Baron reports and ... not according to " The Plot " and his own signed 1941 Official report ?

5) Did you check the bearings of all warships during this timeframe ( provided many times from me on many threads ) between those warships, ... because as Sean and Duncan suggested me long time ago, ... distances can be wrong by a huge percentage ( like in this case estimate even using rangefinders ) but the bearings do have a much less error possibility, ... especially when double checked by the declarations on both directions.

6) Do you really think that a Royal Navy Rear Admiral in command of a squadron needed an order from a Vice Admiral before engaging the enemy in sight, ... when he realized that his shadowing duty was clearly over and a battle was going to start within few minutes ? What about when he saw that a similar heavy cruiser in the enemy formation was engaging superior warships by opening fire ? What about when Hood was sunk and PoW was alone being hammered by the enemy ? Why he did engage the Bismarck on the 27th of May without having received any order to do so from Adm Tovey on KGV ?

I like to have your opinion ... :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 )

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 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:09 am

Dunmunro wrote: "The great fear on Norfolk and Suffolk was that Bismarck and PE would turn north at high speed and attempt to withdraw"
Hi Duncan,
we are finally in agreement now :clap: , a turn to north was a possibility, NOT a suicidal turn to east (against Norfolk, as you were suggesting before). W-W was in a very good position to try to close the range after 5:16.


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)

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag » Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:43 am

Hi All

Hi Antonio, well let me answer your questions as best I can, please don't think I am disrespecting your work, I have a copy of the plot map from the N.A. in front of me and the Ellis biography and so can only state what I see.

1. From 05.16 to 05.41 Norfolk closed on the enemy.
2. From 05.41 to 05.48 Norfolk turned to run parallel to Bismarck and signalled his enemy report. About the same time receiving PoW and Hoods reports (point 8) from 05.48 to 05.50 he continued on his course.
3. At 05.50 he sighted BC1 and from the plot map began to turn toward the Bismarck.
4. According to the plot map at 05.55 Norflolk was pointing toward the enemy and closing, not beginning to turn.

May I also answer your other points that you put forward to Mr Cadogan which may help you too
1. Yes I have done the corrected distances to ships from the plot map.
2. At 05.16 Norfolk spots smoke, assumes (does not know for sure but it's a good bet) it is BC1 but does not have sight of Bismarck. At 05.41 he has Bismarck and reports at the same time receiving sighting reports from BC1.
3. I have not seen your post of the GO of the Norfolk no. Ellis does state that if Suffolk had engaged Bismarck it would have been ineffective and cause spotting problems, perhaps Norfolks shells would have had the same tesult?
4. Yes, Roughly 18000 yds and yes 4 guns bearing ineffective and his tactical role was to continue the shadowing pending the outcome of the main battle. He later reports on the action when Bismarck turned and fired on Suffolk, I think it was at 18.42 hrs, and at 20,700 yds. He spots PoW fall of shot and comments on her erratic spread being caused by her bridge hit and wondered due to Suffolks third broadside straddling if such a lady luck hit was possible by Suffolk at that time.
5. Yes.
6. Yes, if as Ellis stated his tactical function of the moment was to follow and flank mark. As for your other questions
Do you presume that any action by Norfolk could have changed the battle outcome?
Was Norfolk responsible for the loss of Hood so quickly? Did Wake-Walker have the gift of foresight?
Did Wake-Walker have the idea that his most important and most useful tactical function above all others was to keep contact with the enemy or did he not?
Would Norfolk have indeed engaged the enemy as on the 27th if the battle had not been so short and when the opportunity presented itself or not?
Was Prinz Eugen a single heavy cruiser at sea in company with a battleship with no other support or a shadowing cruiser waiting for BC1 or the Home fleet intent on keeping the enemy tracked?

Please believe me I am not wanting to discourage destroy or degrade your work here, I am simply saying that there are other evidences that suggest other motives than cowardice etc. These have to be answered for you to get at your truth.

Best wishes
Cag.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by dunmunro » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:10 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "The great fear on Norfolk and Suffolk was that Bismarck and PE would turn north at high speed and attempt to withdraw"
Hi Duncan,
we are finally in agreement now :clap: , a turn to north was a possibility, NOT a suicidal turn to east (against Norfolk, as you were suggesting before). W-W was in a very good position to try to close the range after 5:16.


Bye, Alberto
Lutjens proceeded South-West through the Denmark Straits toward the open Atlantic, and to reverse course he would have to proceed North-East.

If Lutjens had ordered a reversal of course at ~0545-0555, he could have kept Norfolk under fire for a considerable time, if Norfolk had closed to ~18K yds, and Holland could not have intervened decisively.

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 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:53 am

Hi Duncan,
NF was on course 240, therefore, had Lutjens reversed course (40), there was not much danger for NF that could turn south in response enlarging range at almost 60 knots relative speed....

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
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 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:57 am

Hi all,
Sorry, double post

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)

Post Reply