Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Sean,
I fully appreciate your desperate attempt to discredit also this umpteenth evidence of the "embellishment" of the DS story done by all involved officers, from Capt.Leach to Adm.Tovey, by changing their declarations.

Rear Adm.Wake-Walker was however by far the most comical, being a "strongly self-opinated but not broadminded" officer (Adm Roger Backhouse words in W-W personal record, not my personal offensive theory about a RN officer) and being therefore very, very careless when releasing delicate declarations (e.g. when he lightly signed Hood was at 10 sm from Norfolk, not even being able of a simple triangulation that would have put him, doing nothing, at 11 sm from an enemy he was supposed to fight).


I'm sure you know that the IWM may have made a mistake in the date of the sinking of Bismarck in the reel content, but the same content, including Bismarck sinking, is correctly dated here, where the recording date is still 28 May 1941, as in any other entry related to this interview.
07 Sink the Bismarck- HMS Norfolk (28 May 1941).jpg
07 Sink the Bismarck- HMS Norfolk (28 May 1941).jpg (76 KiB) Viewed 989 times
As I already said, it's you who have to prove that the recording date of May 28 is wrong. Please do it, asking to the IWM to correct their error (if any.... :negative: ), moving the date possibly to 29 or 30 May and....changing nothing to W-W funny contradictions :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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

I see no contradictions at all. Anyway, what should Wake-Walker have done to bring his ships in action?
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: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

It is not technically a contradiction, ... it is a correction of a previous ( very likely ) released information.

Of course a very crucial and needed correction written on his official report needed to avoid further possible problems.

One thing is to state as he did, ... and we can listen to on his recorded interview, ... that he realized and consequently was well aware soon after 5 am that the smoke on his port bow at around 16 sea miles ( my estimate ) were the Hood and the Prince of Wales, ... and a very different thing is to state ( later on his written report ) that he saw a smoke at 05:16, ... and only at 05:50 he realized and identified that this smoke were Hood and PoW.

The difference is on the evaluation of his actions done or not done during those 35 minutes of full awareness of the BC1 force was coming for the interception.

If you were NOT aware, ... nobody can ask you why you did not do anything ?
If you were fully aware somebody can ask you : why you did nothing during those 35 minutes ?

What could a Royal Navy RearAdm in command of an heavy cruiser squadron have done in that elapsed time, ... like closing the range and do his utmost to bring his warships into action, ... and I mean both of them including the Suffolk, ... joining the BC1 warships as soon as possible, ... is the question he wanted to avoid by correcting the statement on his later written report.

Much better to state that both were out of range at the beginning of the action and unaware that BC1 warships were going to engage very soon closing the range.

Hope it is clear enough now, ... what he did.

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: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

@Antonio

Closing the range to whom? BC1 or the German ships?
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: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

he knew where the enemy was since the evening before and all the night thru, ... and at that point, ... immediately after 5 am, .. he knew where BC1 warships were too.

The Norfolk was armed with torpedoes, ... the Suffolk not, ... it was sufficient to raise to full speed his warships and close the range, ... ordering the Suffolk to do the same from enemy stern starboard side too, ... and to get ready to open fire.

This is not what he did as we can see on the Norfolk track.

I am sure you recall perfectly what Adm Tovey wrote on his point 17 about all this situation ...
17. It was the intention of the Vice-Admiral Commanding, Battle Cruiser Squadron, that the Hood and Prince of Wales should engage the Bismarck, leaving the Prinz Eugen to the cruisers, but the Rear-Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron, was not aware that the battlecruiser force was so near; the Norfolk and Suffolk, therefore, shadowing from the eastward and northward respectively at a range of about 15 miles, were not in a position to engage the Prinz Eugen who was now stationed ahead of the Bismarck on a course of 240°.
As you can read the " awareness " was a key factor to determine whether or not he could or could NOT have done something.

I hope you got my point now ...

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Now you have reproduced the clear unambiguous report from Norfolk's Log - thank you.

Now you need to accept the following:
What you also know because you have the report is that it says "Prinz Eugen was placed further away from Bismarck, so Norfolk's control remained on Bismarck". I believe the range information you have shown so far left out this sentence, thus accidently failing to make it clear W-W had no rangefinder data to Hood. Therefore his estimate at the first Hood enquiry was that- just a guess. The only ranges described in the report are the ranges that mattered- to the enemy, Bismarck, and these vary between 30,400 and 27,200- well beyond any kind of effective 8 " gun range.
With no rangefinder data to Hood, the ludicrous and irrelevant diagram produced by some nameless civil service draughtsman is exposed for what it is, errr, ludicrous and irrelevant. :D It is such a shame it has mislead you so badly. Its polished reproduction makes it clear it was produced some time after the enquiry sat, when W-W had returned to his pressing responsibility of defeating Nazi Germany, not editing out the errors produced by the uninformed. When asked what the distance to Hood was, W-W perhaps should have said "Honestly, I have no idea, we never measured it". That would have been legally correct, but unhelpful, and he could not be forced to answer because he had no knowledge of the distance. But this was not a Court Martial, and he was not being charged with anything. If he had been asked what the distance to Bismarck was- unlikely in a technical enquiry solely concerned with the Hood, he would have answered quite honestly, between 30,400 and 27,200 yds. Then the nameless draughtsman would have produced a very different Triangle of Doom.

Do you think anyone measured 14 miles at 05:00? it's a guess it's irrelevant. 2-6,000 yds error, quite likely on a day of exceptional visibility.

That would not have changed your opinion that he should have been shadowing more closely, (let's face it nothing will) and taking the likely chance of blundering into the enemy like Black Prince at Jutland- losing his life and his crew and the chance of maintaining the shadowing to no purpose, but it would mean you would not have constructed this untenable theory alleging lies, deceit, falsification of records etc etc.
he knew where the enemy was since the evening before and all the night thru
no he didn't because Suffolk was reporting incorrect positions. If he had closed on Suffolk's reported position for the enemy, he would have likely not even seen them when he did. as an experienced sailor he knew the accumulated navigational error would be large.
05:41 - Enemy in sight 276°
I think this is the point Marc was making in his usual dry, laconic style :wink:

BTW
06:02 - Hood blew up
collates very nicely with the PG KTB 06:01:20 don't you think?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

he knew where the enemy was since the evening before and all the night thru, ... and at that point, ... immediately after 5 am, .. he knew where BC1 warships were too.

The Norfolk was armed with torpedoes, ... the Suffolk not, ... it was sufficient to raise to full speed his warships and close the range, ... ordering the Suffolk to do the same from enemy stern starboard side too, ... and to get ready to open fire.

This is not what he did as we can see on the Norfolk track.

I am sure you recall perfectly what Adm Tovey wrote on his point 17 about all this situation ...
17. It was the intention of the Vice-Admiral Commanding, Battle Cruiser Squadron, that the Hood and Prince of Wales should engage the Bismarck, leaving the Prinz Eugen to the cruisers, but the Rear-Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron, was not aware that the battlecruiser force was so near; the Norfolk and Suffolk, therefore, shadowing from the eastward and northward respectively at a range of about 15 miles, were not in a position to engage the Prinz Eugen who was now stationed ahead of the Bismarck on a course of 240°.
As you can read the " awareness " was a key factor to determine whether or not he could or could NOT have done something.

I hope you got my point now ...

Bye Antonio :D

Antonio,

the Germans were seen the first time at 0541 at 16 miles distance. So we can't say he didn't do anything during 35 minutes. After 0541 Norfolk changed here course slightly. I'm not very practiced in what we call in German the "Kreuzeraufgabe" and therefore I'm possibly wrong, but it seems to me that Wake Walker turned into an interception course.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Wadinga wrote: ".....no he didn't because Suffolk was reporting incorrect positions. If he had closed on Suffolk's reported position for the enemy, he would have likely not even seen them when he did. as an experienced sailor he knew the accumulated navigational error would be large. "
Hi Sean,
you are right: Suffolk was reporting incorrect positions; however he had the RDF bearings (the ones present even in your favorite Pinchin's "Plot"....) to Suffolk that should have allowed his staff to estimate a more correct enemy position.

Anyway, he did not alert Ellis of the incoming BC1, he did not increase to full speed and he did not order both his ships to close range and keep ready to engage the enemy (to prevent Ellis "unfortunate" turn to north). He did nothing but continued his course 240° until soon after 5:40, when he finally saw the enemy and....slightly turned away.....
Just keeping course (avoiding both the "arc" and the turn to 270°) and increasing to full speed since 5:16, he would have been at less than 15.000 meters from Bismarck by 6:00, as well as Ellis who was already closer, and they could have opened a (quite effective) fire from astern.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:59 pm, edited 5 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: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I responded your question by accepting it, ... what is your response to my question to you : do you accept the evidence of that declaration by WW ?

Thanks ...

@ Herr Nilsson,

it is very funny that he saw and recognized correctly both the enemy ships apparently from 16 miles at 05.41 ( to be noticed the 2/3 minutes delay factor on Norfolk war diary time inputs everybody can easily realize by reading the BC1 open fire at 05:55 instead of 05:52/53 ), ... so very likely that measurement was done 2 or 3 minutes before 05:41, ... and was not able to see an realize BC1 warships at same distance of 16 sea miles since soon after 05:00 ... and had to wait until 05:50 to do so, ... while running for close to 50 minutes an almost parallel course to BC1, ... perfectly aware of where the enemy was more or less due to Suffolk taken bearings and radio information.

After 05:41 instead of running straight for the interception keeping his course and just raising up his ship speed, ... he turned into an enemy parallel course with the enemy ships and toward BC1 warships, ... thus avoiding to run a direct interception course but choosing a more protective approach waiting for the events to develop further before closing to engage ...

Do you realize that the recent Wake-Walker interview is clearly demonstrating also that Adm Tovey at point 17 was releasing an incorrect statement as I am telling everybody since years ?

Kreuzeraufgabe = Challenge of intercepting enemy shipping

To fully understand what happened, one must evaluate the situation from 05:20, ... before the German warships made the 2 turns, ... that completely changed the overall scenario at first, ... and then soon after the 05:37 when BC1 changed course going for the direct interception approach, ... that is what " forced " the Norfolk into an immediate approach closing in situation ... that he avoided by turning out at 05:41 ... as he did.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

@Antonio
... and was not able to see an realize BC1 warships at same distance of 16 sea miles since soon after 05:00 ...
16 miles is your estitmate, isn't it?
... and was not able to see an realize BC1 warships at same distance of 16 sea miles since soon after 05:00 ... and had to wait until 05:50 to do so, ... while running for close to 50 minutes an almost parallel course to BC1
"Soon after 05:00" means 05:16 by the way. I have no problem with that account. PoW and Hood were fine on Norfolks port bow and on a parallel course. That means Norfolk was chasing them with no silhouette visible.
After 05:41 instead of running straight for the interception keeping his course and just raising up his ship speed, ... he turned into an enemy parallel course with the enemy ships and toward BC1 warships, ... thus avoiding to run a direct interception course but choosing a more protective approach waiting for the events to develop further before closing to engage ...
You confuse interception with closing. Wake-Walker changed his course at 05:41 to intercept ...for better or for worse. Keeping his straight course would have bring him somewhat closer to the German ...for better or for worse...but not very much.

Edit: I see no incorrect statement in point 17.
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: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

YES, 16 sea miles is my current estimate, ... Pinchin on " The Plot " puts them much closer at 05:20 and 05:30 as you can verify easily yourself.

Wake-Walker declared he knew who they were, ... so having identified them or not it is not so important, ... what is important is that he was aware of their presence from that moment onward.

Speeding up and running straight on his course he would have close on the enemy at a much faster rate and being on firing range earlier, ... with the manoeuvre he did he delayed that moment,... leaving temporarily the battlefield to Holland warships, ... just as the Baron wrote on his book.

Wake-Walker declared he knew who they were, so he was fully aware since soon after 05:00, ... Adm Tovey declared he was unaware of their presence so near at the described beginning of the action, ... you do not see anything incorrect on point 17, ... only because that statement is referred to a time much earlier than 05:35 am of point 18 start time, ... and after 03:40 of point 16 end, ... as we all know now thanking you, ... still for 19 minutes, ... between 05:16 and 05:35, ... is clearly incorrect anyway.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

W-W's relaxed and casual recorded interview (date still to be determined- other associated dates are inaccurate) does not overwhelm the precise evidence from the Log and his report - he did not identify Holland's ships until 05:50 when it is logged. Tovey accepts this because it is consistent and what is reported. You have latched onto a minor verbal imprecision from W-W with the desperation of a drowning man. Up to the point when this massive reinforcement was spotted, his ships were alone and each easily overwhelmed. There would have been universal relief at 05:15 if Hood's presence was identified, and recorded in the Log, but there is none because it had not occurred.

What on earth does this phrase mean?
so having identified them or not it is not so important
the identity decides whether their presence is significant. If the smoke is Holland's squadron and not some other maritime user of the North Atlantic it is significant. If the smoke is from a Swedish timber ship, or a Russian fish factory vessel, or even a US Coastguard vessel, it helps him not one iota.

Hello Alberto,
He did nothing but continued his course 240° until soon after 5:40
why would he need to do anything? As Antonio has confirmed the Log clearly states:
1) 05:41 - Enemy in sight 276°
2) 05:50 - Hood and Prince of Wales in sight 220° 14 sea miles
3) 05:55 - Hood and Prince of Wales engaged enemy
4) 06:02 - Hood blew up
As far as W-W is concerned, keeping a light leash on Lutjens until the Home Fleet intervenes is just fine. The further the German gets away from the Luftwaffe protection of Germany, Norway and France, into the RN's playground- the North Atlantic, the more likely his destruction is. Goading him into turning, by getting too close and perhaps then allowing scuttling back to skulk for months under the protection of minefields, nets, aircraft and E-boats (as Tirpitz did) would not end in his destruction- which giving him enough rope to hang himself certainly did. Tovey expressed himself happy with the performance of all detached commanders, including Wake-Walker.

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: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

unfortunately for you this very smart Officer was able on his report to state one thing, ... and the opposite in another phrase, ... either before or after, ... on the same document, ... several times and not only about this topic, ... :shock:

So at point 7 on his report there is the explanation and confirmation on how they became aware of BC1 warships presence in the vicinity from a destroyers message interception, ... at 04.45 from Icarus, ... so it is confirmed that soon after 5 am they knew who those ships were, ... or I have to think that most likely somebody suggested to him this information, ... so smart he was, ... anyway during his recorded interview he was very evidently proud of this personal intuition ... :wink:

Of course later, ... and probably after somebody else suggestion I suppose, ... he changed his version, ... but also this we know was a very common and often utilized attitude he had, ... isnt it ?

BTW even Russell Grenfell understood everything about all this topic on his book at page 39 ... apparently you are still not able to ...

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: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Wadinga wrote: "As far as W-W is concerned, keeping a light leash on Lutjens until the Home Fleet intervenes is just fine. The further the German gets away from the Luftwaffe protection of Germany, Norway and France, into the RN's playground- the North Atlantic, the more likely his destruction is. "
Hi Sean,
are you seriously saying that it was just good that Bismarck could reach (absolutely undamaged, as Leach and Wake-Walker could be able to know at 6:00 on May 24) the "RN playground", where several convoys (including WS8B, the largest troop convoy ever since war was declared) were sailing ? :shock:

What a fool was the poor Adm Holland attacking her in the Strait, he should have "shadowed" and allowed her to reach this private "playground" to further concentrate the RN forces ! A pity that Wake-Walker was not yet promoted full Admiral to prevent such a risky move.... :negative:

Re. the light leash, he kept it even too light during the following night as we all unfortunately know.... :oops:

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:39 pm, edited 2 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)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

unfortunately for you this very smart Officer was able on his report to state one thing, ... and the opposite in another phrase, ... either before or after, ... on the same document, ... several times and not only about this topic, ... :shock:

So at point 7 on his report there is the explanation and confirmation on how they became aware of BC1 warships presence in the vicinity from a destroyers message interception, ... at 04.45 from Icarus, ... so it is confirmed that soon after 5 am they knew who those ships were, ... or I have to think that most likely somebody suggested to him this information, ... so smart he was, ... anyway during his recorded interview he was very evidently proud of this personal intuition ... :wink:

Of course later, ... and probably after somebody else suggestion I suppose, ... he changed his version, ... but also this we know was a very common and often utilized attitude he had, ... isnt it ?

BTW even Russell Grenfell understood everything about all this topic on his book at page 39 ... apparently you are still not able to ...

Bye Antonio :D
You make the continual assumption that W-W was in communication with Lutjens!!! How could W-W possibly ignore Lutjens' potential courses of action, especially the possibility that Lutjens would turn north at full speed when Lutjens sighted BC1?

This is from Battle Summary 5:
At 0445, a report was intercepted from the Icarus, one of the destroyers with the Hood, giving her position and that of the Achates, some distance astern of the Norfolk. This was the first intimation that Rear-Admiral Wake-Walker had of the Battlecruiser Force being in the vicinity. At 0516/ 24 smoke was observed on the port bow. The Hood and Prince of Wales were in sight. (my underlining)
W-W might suspect that the smoke observed on the port bow was BC1 but he could not know that for certain, especially since if he knew that the destroyers were attached to BC1, then he would have to assume that BC1 was somewhere astern of Norfolk.
Post Reply