Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Antonio, would it be ok to download your article map as I'd like to help if possible?

I can download it and print it off to the same scale as my copy of the plot map and put them together. Of course it would be for personal use only, the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen traces and times will be of great value.

Hi Wadinga it is of interest that the Instructor Lieutenant created the map on the 29th May.

Best wishes
Cag.
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,

@ CAG,

sure, you can download the map and use it to provide us your inputs, ... no problem and thanks in advance for your help.

In can you need something more as it seems, as usual just feel free to ask me.

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: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

You say
This because Suffolk communicated at 04:56 the enemy on her bearing 195°, so the perfect opposite of 15°, and confirmed it at 05:22 with a "no change" communicaton, so enemy still at 195°from her. Very likely at 05:35 we can assume that 195° was still there too,
When did Bismarck make her radical turn to port thus changing any bearing?

Also
The 15° between Prinz Eugen/Bismarck to Suffolk ( ref. F ) is defined by F.O. Busch book on 1943,
-the only person to so identify Suffolk is A. Virtuani. Busch says "a mast".

Busch says "4 uhr 30 einen" --since he is an hour out this is 05:30.

All the best

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

Wadinag wrote: "the only person to so identify Suffolk is A. Virtuani. Busch says "a mast"."
Hi Sean,
please, I fully understand how inconvenient for your agenda is the 15° bearing, but F.O.Busch says a signal from PG to BS was issued:

"one each smoke trail, true bearings 96 and 157 degrees. True bearing 15 degrees an additional mast. Distance 17,600 meters"

In this message we have the bearings of all 3 British ships/group and they are almost perfect reciprocal matches with the bearings taken from British side (337° from British to Germans and 276° from Norfolk to Germans). No way that the mast can be a trawler or an oiler as you suggested time ago for the smoke seen by Norfolk at 5:16 on her port bow...... :wink:
You cannot discard this input only because it will nail Suffolk very close to enemy at 5:41.



You should instead point out that the 17.600 meters are not very reliable, as all the distances measured with debatable WWII instruments.
However, I have seen your proposed map (sincere congratulations :clap: for your first attempt to finally build an alternative battlemap that, despite the severe errors pointed out by Antonio, confirms how Pinchin's Plot was a blatant attempt to enlarge the battlefield).

It looks like you now prefer stick to distances
measured by the Norfolk rangefinder (1930 vintage ?) and estimated by W-W at the second board of inquiry (declaration based on Pinchin's Plot ONLY) instead of respecting the much more precise bearings, as you yourself suggested to Antonio when you had no preconceived agenda to defend these officers. :negative:


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

sorry, ... I wrote above : " In can you need something ... " Obviously I wanted to say : In case you need something ... ". .... :wink:

@ Wadinga,

now you are evaluating the unexpected moment that closed the battlefield, the " S " turn ordered by Adm Lutjens which occurred between 05:20 when PG started it turning 50° degrees to port followed by the Bismarck, ... from course 220° to 170°, .... and 05:35 when Bismarck closed the " S " manoeuvre turning back from course 170° to course 220°again.

This manoeuvre was observed by the Suffolk which communicated by radio at 05:33 the beginning of it and at 05:38 the end of it, ... only incorrectly evaluated it being 30°, ... in reality it was 50° as said.

Now, in order to correctly realize our 3 snapshot figures I have suggested, at 05:35; 05:37 and 05:41, ... we need to carefully take in consideration all those course changes by every warship.

I suggest everybody to consider the following :

- On Norfolk, the use of her strategical map track for her and the consideration of the 2 different bearings PInchin drew on "The Plot", which in my opinion should be correlated to the Suffolk 05:33 ( 314°) and 05:38 ( 318°) radio transmission, and not at 05:36 and 05:41 like it is showed on the map.

- On Suffolk the starting figure I posted years ago, with her track correlation with the German warships at 04:47 and 04:56, with her confirmation at 05:22 of her course and the enemy bearing from her, which I assume being the Bismarck because the Prinz Eugen was just starting the " S " manoeuvre ahead of Bismarck.
Starting from there we must evaluate the information we have after in order to realize when and where the Suffolk changed course after and made her " circle ". In this case we have the 2 bearings above from the Norfolk at 05:33 and 05:38, the 350° from PoW at 05:37 ( in my opinion it was 05:38 as well as for Norfolk ) and 2 bearings from Prinz Eugen we have of her on this period, the 15° from Busch ( the mast at 175 hectometers ) and the 28° from the Prinz Eugen map taken at 05:50 on her " Starboard achteraus Schwere Kreuzer ", clearly recorded on the Prinz Eugen battle map we have. In this way we should be able to correctly locate the Suffolk " circle " because it ended at 05:50 and we do have a bearing of her from the Prinz Eugen.

Also in the case of Suffolk I suggest to " freeze " the Pinchin drew track on " The Plot " and use her strategical map track with minor adjustments, ... just like for the Norfolk.

Summarizing 2 notes for you, ... first I know you have still some doubts about that mast being the Suffolk, ... but I can hardly imagine another ship in between the Germans and the Suffolk at 175 hectometers behind Prinz Eugen on that moment, ... second the time you refer to, ... on Busch 1943 book he used German times, ... as you can very easily verify on his book maps too, ... so an hour before the time reference I choose to use for all my re-construction and everybody always refer to, ... so do not get confused by the timing, ... especially on German documents, ... often written 1 hour before our used time. In conclusion that 04:30 must be read 05:30, no doubts.

Once you will correctly position all the above Suffolk reference on a precise in scale map, ... I like to have your comments about where Suffolk track and her " circle " are going to be evaluated by you, ... and a comparison with " The Plot " positioning by Pinchin.

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: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by dunmunro »

How do we know that Busch wasn't using data provided by the B-Dienst intercepts and simply using a reciprocal bearing and claiming it was from PE?
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 »

Dunmunro wrote: "How do we know that Busch wasn't using data provided by the B-Dienst intercept"
Hi Duncan,
because 1) no semaphore would have been needed in this case.... :negative:

2) the Norfolk was transmitting a wrong 280° as enemy bearing (not reciprocal of 96°, the correct 276° was only in Norfolk war diary tha B-Dienst could not access, I guess). Busch did NOT write 100°. :shock:

3) the Suffolk was NOT transmitting the 17.600 meters distance. :think:

Therefore Busch accounted the correct estimations from PG.


Come on, let's try to use the evidences we have not always try to deny them because they are not complying with personal agendas.... :negative:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:46 am, 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
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,

here you have F.O. Busch 1943 book battle map in graphic format from where you can verify his time reference utilization on his book that was 1 hour before the time we are using for our re-construction reference :
FO_Busch Illustration 03.jpg
FO_Busch Illustration 03.jpg (89.21 KiB) Viewed 3577 times
Consequently his 04:30 must be read 05:30 for your re-construction purpose.

@ all,

Addittionally I made your reasoning easier I hope, ... and here you have the correct Suffolk positions plotting from the 04:47 until the 05:50, ... including the " circle " we have to define and position now, ... based on her own strategical map inputs, ... but surely you should be able to realize now where the " circle " is going to end up being correctly positioned, ... thanking the inputs we have from Prinz Eugen at 05:30 ( 15°) and 05:50 ( 28°), ... the Norfolk 05:33, 05:38 bearings confirming the change of bearings on going toward the Norfolk and the Suffolk, ... and her own incoming direction from 05:22 with speed and course.

A " piece of cake " now, ... to plot her ... :wink:
Suffolk_0447_0550_01.png
Suffolk_0447_0550_01.png (103.79 KiB) Viewed 3577 times
Now you can compare those relative positions each others with " The Plot " positions and understand on your own what has been done just on the battlefield relative positions and related distances among the ships.

It is unavoidable for everybody putting like I did the ships on a map using the correct available bearings, ... to realize immediately that the battlefield becomes much closer when compared to the one showed on " The Plot ".

I have no intention to restart any heated discussion about this map comparison, ... we already did it way too much and it is ok to keep our own opinions.
I only want you to understand by your own what I am saying with the only intent to have you realize it and proceed toward a better re-construction of the tracks of this battle.

Opinions welcome ... 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: 1578
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

@ all

If you want to use Antonio's track's, I would like to point out that they are already modified!

@ Antonio
Antonio Bonomi wrote: @ Wadinga,

now you are evaluating the unexpected moment that closed the battlefield, the " S " turn ordered by Adm Lutjens which occurred between 05:20 when PG started it turning 50° degrees to port followed by the Bismarck, ... from course 220° to 170°, .... and 05:35 when Bismarck closed the " S " manoeuvre turning back from course 170° to course 220°again.

This manoeuvre was observed by the Suffolk which communicated by radio at 05:33 the beginning of it and at 05:38 the end of it, ... only incorrectly evaluated it being 30°, ... in reality it was 50° as said.
This assumption isn't backed by any source. Brinkmann writes "Schiffe drehen hart B.b. 170°". That's plural. Therefore it's also unlikely that the German ships are not turning back simultaneously, because this means Bismarck would not be in PG's wake.
Antonio Bonomi wrote: Now, in order to correctly realize our 3 snapshot figures I have suggested, at 05:35; 05:37 and 05:41, ... we need to carefully take in consideration all those course changes by every warship.

I suggest everybody to consider the following :

- On Norfolk, the use of her strategical map track for her and the consideration of the 2 different bearings PInchin drew on "The Plot", which in my opinion should be correlated to the Suffolk 05:33 ( 314°) and 05:38 ( 318°) radio transmission, and not at 05:36 and 05:41 like it is showed on the map.
This assuption isn't backed by any source. 05:33 and 05:38 is "Time Of Origin". "Time Of Delivery" is 05:35 and 05:40.
Antonio Bonomi wrote:
- On Suffolk the starting figure I posted years ago, with her track correlation with the German warships at 04:47 and 04:56, with her confirmation at 05:22 of her course and the enemy bearing from her, which I assume being the Bismarck because the Prinz Eugen was just starting the " S " manoeuvre ahead of Bismarck.
Starting from there we must evaluate the information we have after in order to realize when and where the Suffolk changed course after and made her " circle ". In this case we have the 2 bearings above from the Norfolk at 05:33 and 05:38, the 350° from PoW at 05:37 ( in my opinion it was 05:38 as well as for Norfolk ) and 2 bearings from Prinz Eugen we have of her on this period, the 15° from Busch ( the mast at 175 hectometers ) and the 28° from the Prinz Eugen map taken at 05:50 on her " Starboard achteraus Schwere Kreuzer ", clearly recorded on the Prinz Eugen battle map we have. In this way we should be able to correctly locate the Suffolk " circle " because it ended at 05:50 and we do have a bearing of her from the Prinz Eugen.

Also in the case of Suffolk I suggest to " freeze " the Pinchin drew track on " The Plot " and use her strategical map track with minor adjustments, ... just like for the Norfolk.

Summarizing 2 notes for you, ... first I know you have still some doubts about that mast being the Suffolk, ... but I can hardly imagine another ship in between the Germans and the Suffolk at 175 hectometers behind Prinz Eugen on that moment, ... second the time you refer to, ... on Busch 1943 book he used German times, ... as you can very easily verify on his book maps too, ... so an hour before the time reference I choose to use for all my re-construction and everybody always refer to, ... so do not get confused by the timing, ... especially on German documents, ... often written 1 hour before our used time. In conclusion that 04:30 must be read 05:30, no doubts.

Once you will correctly position all the above Suffolk reference on a precise in scale map, ... I like to have your comments about where Suffolk track and her " circle " are going to be evaluated by you, ... and a comparison with " The Plot " positioning by Pinchin.

Bye Antonio :D
See my comments above. I don't recommend to use the strategical maps, because e.g. the turning cycles are totally out of scale.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Antonio once again thank you as always very generous, thank you.

If it is ok I'd like to use the plot tracks for Norfolk and Suffolk? As the strategical plans are quite small scale for me to enlarge.

Suffolk was a problem for me too, in his report Ellis mentions the use of "enemy centre bearings" being used and the occaissional corrected right cut off bearing. If he was transmitting an "enemy" report not a "battleship" one could these have been centre bearings ie a mid bearing between Bismarck and Prinz Eugen?

Best wishes
Cag.
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Sorry Here Nilsson missed your post, the plot tracks are easier to transfer yes, the strategic tracks is a small scale it is hard to enlarge with accuracy.

Best wishes
Cag.
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 Nillson,

I know you are very precise and I agree with what you wrote above.

Any idea on how to proceed from your side and not be stopped by those differences ?

In order to make our re-construction exercise we must use something, ... of course the most precise the better, ... knowing that we will never be 100 % perfect which is impossible, ... but we will accept among us known agreed tolerances we can put in writing on the final map.

@ CAG,

YES, of course as a starter you can use the tracks from " The Plot " Norfolk and Suffolk map made by Pinchin of course, ... keeping in mind that they can be a bit different compared to the reality, ... and after we can compare them with their strategical map tracks, ... so with this assumption I think we can all proceed and evaluate where we end up being after our teamwork analysis and evaluations.

Your point about what Ellis was using as reference to plot the enemy ships is correct and well taken too, ... and I suggest to keep it among the various tolerances that we must agree are unavoidable doing this work, ... that I always thought is an effort of progressively made adjustments and corrections.

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: 1578
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
@ Herr Nillson,

I know you are very precise and I agree with what you wrote above.

Any idea on how to proceed from your side and not be stopped by those differences ?

In order to make our re-construction exercise we must use something, ... of course the most precise the better, ... knowing that we will never be 100 % perfect which is impossible, ... but we will accept among us known agreed tolerances we can put in writing on the final map.
Actually....well, actually I think that the tracks of the cruisers in the plot are quiet correct. :think:

Antonio, I consider your theory as possible, but also think that it is just one particular reading. I also think that (a lot of) other interpretations are reasonable.

Possibly it would be wise not to try create a DoD for a certain point in time at all costs but just to accept a sequence of bearings. I see no reason why this would stopp anyone's efforts.
Maybe we should also try to categorize bearings in reliable and not so reliable anyway. I mean to say all problems we had in the discussions are caused by not agreeing about the simplest issues. I'm afraid we will not agree in most issues, but maybe it's possible to find a "common denominator" at least. Perhaps this helps not to go over the same issues again and again. If it turns out that the differences are still too big, we should even consider not to discuss any further until new sources arise.
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,

you wrote :
Actually....well, actually I think that the tracks of the cruisers in the plot are quiet correct. :think:
Antonio, I consider your theory as possible, but also think that it is just one particular reading. I also think that (a lot of) other interpretations are reasonable.
Many thanks, ... I agree with you on the above.

you wrote after :
Possibly it would be wise not to try create a DoD for a certain point in time at all costs but just to accept a sequence of bearings. I see no reason why this would stop anyone's efforts.
Maybe we should also try to categorize bearings in reliable and not so reliable anyway. I mean to say all problems we had in the discussions are caused by not agreeing about the simplest issues. I'm afraid we will not agree in most issues, but maybe it's possible to find a "common denominator" at least. Perhaps this helps not to go over the same issues again and again. If it turns out that the differences are still too big, we should even consider not to discuss any further until new sources arise.
I think I like this progressive approach on categorize by reliability the bearings as you suggest, ... use the tracks we have at hand and the maps we already produced in quantities, ... and see where are the major agreements and/or disagreements.

What about the 4 maps I have posted in the middle of page 12 of this thread as a starter, ... where everyone can have the base plot track movements to fit the main bearings written on the maps, ... the polygon base average reference with the main bearings, ... the polygon on the map merging them ... and the overall geographical correct positioning on the main tracks.

Those can act as base information reference I think and from there anyone can work in additional details to be shared.

Of course I leave to you know to go ahead with the first table of bearings reliability, ... since I think that we have so long discussed about every single one for a very long time, ... so we should be done with our opinion about them all.

@ CAG,

if you go on page 12 as I wrote and take out those 4 maps I posted, ... you can have a reference base already done to play with the Suffolk and Norfolk tracks from the Pinchin base map, ... and of course play with it and modify it according to what you think make sense.

@ all,

if anyone needs and want those maps on a larger scale, ... just ask me.

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: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

You say
despite the severe errors pointed out by Antonio,
in my version of your map.

Can you say what they are? :D

I see these, with no qualifying times against them. Without times these observations are meaningless.
A) 334° PoW to BS, is OK.
B) 350° PoW to SK, is OK.
C) 276° NK to BS, is OK. ( Note that on Norfolk radio message is 280°)
D) 320° NK to SK, is OK.
B) is not OK because I said
The distance from Suffolk to Hood at 05:53 is 50,400 yds or 25.2 miles on 185T. (0553 (B). Heavy gun flashes bearing 185°. Half a minute later Bismarck opened fire to port.)
D) is not OK because I said
The distance from Norfolk to Suffolk at 06:20 is 37,200 yds or 18.6 miles on 328.5T
and these are simply wrong on your map:
E) 18° PoW to NK, in your map is 27° ( +9°).
F) 15° BS/PG to SK, in your map is 20° ( +5°).
I have explained why you have been wrong in using the guessed DR positions for the cruisers on the PoW Action map, but you have decided to ignore this.

You say
It looks like you now prefer stick to distances measured by the Norfolk rangefinder (1930 vintage ?) and estimated by W-W at the second board of inquiry (declaration based on Pinchin's Plot ONLY)
You must read what I posted, my friend. The ranges I quoted are derived from the revised map. Therefore they confirm independently what Norfolk measured to Bismarck. W-W was wrong with both 20,000 and 30,000 yds according to the revised map (it says 24,300 yds). But since he was merely guessing at the first enquiry, and Pinchin didn't have the PoW track plot at the second it's not surprising.

Now having published your allegedly definitive map "proving" deliberate distortion by officers and men of the RN, Antonio is talking about starting from scratch using the strategical maps, but distorting them with the incorrect positions from the PoW action plot or mysterious triangle positions for Suffolk based on unrecorded single line of position DF bearings.

Marc/Cag are of course correct. The there is exaggeration of a number of features on the strategical maps to allow them to be represented despite the scale. The track plot of PoW's own movements has been combined with Pinchin's Norfolk track because the latter was traced from the missing tactical plot. Both were created by the ARL Admiralty Research Laboratory automatic plotting machine.

All the bearings I measured between Norfolk and PoW/Hood and Norfolk and Bismarck are true blind trials. The two tracks are linked by the log entry only. All other the bearings are taken from the revised map, then compared with signals and reports. Suffolk's track has been located solely on the Norfolk sighting gunfire bearing and yet the Hood open fire bearing half an hour earlier is spot on.

I have not compared my map with the Plot
It is unavoidable for everybody putting like I did the ships on a map using the correct available bearings, ... to realize immediately that the battlefield becomes much closer when compared to the one showed on " The Plot ".
My map shows Norfolk was never closer to Bismarck than 28,300 yds -is that more or less expanded than Pinchin?

I say "The distance from Suffolk to Hood at 05:53 is 50,400 yds or 25.2 miles on 185T. (0553 (B). Heavy gun flashes bearing 185°. Half a minute later Bismarck opened fire to port.) - is that more or less expanded than Pinchin?

You have been repeatedly calling for a map from me for a year and yet you virtually ignore it when it arrives. I am happy for you to pull it apart. It is iteration one. Get to work! :D

All the best

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