Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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,

@ Dunmunro,

we know very well at what distance he was at a certain point into the battle, since he himself signed his own declaration at the Hood first board of inquiry.

We know what he and others did after that initial declaration ... now.

We can evaluate what he should or could have done at DS, ... but nothing will change the reality that he did nothing while well into the battle of the DS with his 1st Cruiser Squadron, ... this is out of discussion and well proved.

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 »

Dunmunro wrote: "We know that Norfolk was outside effective gunnery range during the entire action."
We know now she was well within maximum range, and out of effective range ONLY because W-W did nothing from 5:16 till 5:55 (40 minutes) to bring his ship(s) in action.
Dunmunro wrote: "The recording was made by the BBC, so there would have had to be a BBC team on board Norfolk, and there was not."
You cannot know, you guess. :negative: IF, the recording was done by BBC, the date recorded by BBC is the only one we can trust.

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

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "We know that Norfolk was outside effective gunnery range during the entire action."
We know now she was well within maximum range, and out of effective range ONLY because W-W did nothing from 5:16 till 5:55 (40 minutes) to bring his ship(s) in action.
Dunmunro wrote: "The recording was made by the BBC, so there would have had to be a BBC team on board Norfolk, and there was not."
You cannot know, you guess. :negative: IF, the recording was done by BBC, the date recorded by BBC is the only one we can trust.

Bye, Alberto
I do know that the recording was made by the BBC because that's what the IMW states. The quality of the recording and the lack of any background noise confirms that it was made in a studio.

BTW here's the recording:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnpIP-AaQFM
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,

@ Dunmunro,

we know very well at what distance he was at a certain point into the battle, since he himself signed his own declaration at the Hood first board of inquiry.

We know what he and others did after that initial declaration ... now.

We can evaluate what he should or could have done at DS, ... but nothing will change the reality that he did nothing while well into the battle of the DS with his 1st Cruiser Squadron, ... this is out of discussion and well proved.

Bye Antonio :D
Antonio, you know that W-W could not hazard his ships by placing them into easy 38cm gun range during daylight. Any suggestion that he could have closed on Bismarck prior to her being engaged by Holland is just farcical, really just plain silly.
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: "I do know that the recording was made by the BBC"
Hi Duncan,
therefore we MUST trust the date and the place as recorded by BBC: 28 May 1941 on board HMS Norfolk, missing any other element.

you wrote: "W-W could not hazard his ships by placing them into easy 38cm gun range during daylight"
Ellis hazarded several times Suffolk during the shadowing (that he did alone all the time :oops: ) to get into visual contact (the last time in full daylight when he was picked up by the PG radar at 176 hectometers, 18.000 yards, according to Ellis own autobiography), then enlarging quickly the range.

At 5:16 Wake-Walker should have: 1) transmitted to Ellis that BC1 was approaching, 2) clearly ordered both cruiser to close range (to prevent the "unfortunate" Ellis turn to north) and 3) been ready for taking part into the engagement, using the 40 minutes he had.
He did nothing, not even forcing speed, he just waited and watched. :negative:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:48 am, edited 3 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,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :
Antonio, you know that W-W could not hazard his ships by placing them into easy 38cm gun range during daylight. Any suggestion that he could have closed on Bismarck prior to her being engaged by Holland is just farcical, really just plain silly.
That could have been a justified conservative shadowing approach attitude until Prinz Eugen openend fire participating in the main action, ... after Adm Lutjens ordered Prinz Eugen to engage, ... an average Royal Navy RearAdmiral should, ... having 2 heavy cruisers under his command, ... he should have acted according to the new needs even without ViceAdm Holland inputs, ... at least with one of them, ... the less precious and newly radar equipped, ... but this is just my personal opinion.

After Hood blew up, ... the missing participation of his cruiser squadron in any possible way, ... with leadership, orders and ... opening fire in any possible way, ... is without any justification, ... given the situation and PoW being hammered by 2 enemies he could have fired to trying to help PoW even while disengaging.

Waiting, ... waiting, ... and waiting again, ... the events went the way we all know now, ... and it remains only to him to try to justify himself after, ... and that is what he did, ... with a lot of help by others, ... and after several very superficial own declarations and signatures.

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 All,

Once again this has descended swiftly into people's opinions about what Wake-Walker should have done, as opposed to what it is recorded he did, what he consistently said he did in both Norfolk's ship's log and in his report, and what he was awarded decorations and promotion for.

In Norfolk's Ship's Log the presence of Holland's Force is first recorded at 05:50 thus: "Hood and Prince of Wales in sight 220 degrees 14 miles. If it had happened before this time, it would have been recorded before this time. The arrival of these massive reinforcements is a great relief to everybody in Norfolk. It is recorded when it happened, what is so difficult to understand about this? :stubborn:

The Ship's Log and his official report are not:
very superficial own declarations and signatures
But first quality sources. We would expect the time to be known accurately, we would expect the bearing to be pretty accurate but we know 14 miles is an estimate.

Duncan's evaluation of the recording as a professional studio recording made some time after the action is clearly correct. Since the smoke seen at 05:16 later proved to be Holland's Force, W-W cannot un-know this afterwards. I am sure if he had realised he would being pilloried 70 years plus with a highly-imaginative and wounding theory to promote, he would have been more specific with his wording in the interview.

Who killed John Lennon? Mark Chapman, those in the know would say, not "an unknown gunman" who was later proved to be Mark Chapman.

The German ship's were on a high profile, once in a blue moon operation, and the Nazi regime was obsessed with propaganda. Hence the Propaganda Kompanie The idea that BBC crews sailed around on patrolling HM ships in the hope something would happen is highly unlikely.

Antonio, please post the Norfolk Log page you supplied before, recording Norfolk did not see the BCF until 05:50. If people are unwilling to accept what original sources record, there is little point in trying to recover Bismarck's KTB from the bottom of the Atlantic since prejudice based on misunderstanding seems to be more important than fact for some. :cool:

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,

not at all, we are evaluating a personal recorded declaration of somebody that knew soon after 05.00 am about which ships were coming from his port bow on the horizon, ... and later changed his previous declarations on his official report.

Does not have to surprise what he did on this occasion too, ... since it is the same he did by signing the 20.000 yards at the Hood first board ... that later he changed with 30.000 yards using " The Plot " at the Hood second board.

It seems to me a person very willing to change, ... his previous superficial and dangerous declarations, ... with something that puts him out of troubles, ... to say the least.

In any case, ... an Officer able only to wait, ... sailing at safe and comfortable distance, ... by doing nothing.

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,

You are deliberately ignoring the Ship's Log recorded at the time, not several days afterwards. Please reproduce it for everyone's interest.
and later changed his previous declarations on his official report
What previous declarations? You surely don't mean this recording you have dug up? :shock:

Looking at the IWM site I note that Captain Dalrymple-Hamilton of Rodney apparently recorded his BBC interview on the 29th (he only entered anchorage at 03:00 that day- he was probably a bit busy to do interviews), the same date as Commander of Victorious and an unnamed RN officer talking about the FAA strikes. The RAF 209 Squadron pilot apparently did his on the 28th the same date as W-W. But in Iceland! :D

There is no likelihood of BBC crews being in all these locations to record highly secret material. Field recording was still in its infancy. I suspect someone just chose arbitrary dates relating to the action rather than the actual date of recording.

You are still banging on about 20,000/30,000 when we have long established it is not only difficult to estimate such distances at sea, but that it was completely irrelevant what the distance to Hood was. 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.

Yes, I know Norfolk popped off 3 salvoes later in the day at 29,000 yds to confirm the splashes couldn't be seen. Evidently they couldn't.

All the best

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

Exactly.

I also find it very interesting that A&A only want to use only those parts of W-W's recording that they feel supports their position but won't accept W-W's very clear statement about the open fire sequence which, of course, completely destroys Antonio's reconstruction of the battle.

W-W's verbal and written account of the open fire sequence is also supported by all three surviving RN ship's reports.
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 know you do not like this recorded series of declarations by RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker, .. just as you do not like the 20.000 vs 30.000 yards change he did using " The Plot " at the 2 Hood Official boards.

Unfortunately those are real occurrences, ... and everybody can listen the WW declarations now, ... as well as read the 2 Hood board different declarations he signed for, ... as those were his inital superficial declarations, ... very dangerous for himself initially, ... until somebody told him how to get out of troubles by releasing something very different.

There is a very interesting parallelism on this conduct with :

1) Capt J.C. Leach radio message about PoW guns availability ... and his later report version.

2) Adm J. Tovey May 30th, 1941 initial report to the Admiralty, ... and his later Official dispatches accepted by the Admiralty.

Nothing will change this surfaced reality, ... and by just looking all the Official documents evolution it comes out very evidently.

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :
... W-W's very clear statement about the open fire sequence which, of course, completely destroys Antonio's reconstruction of the battle.
You must be jocking Duncan, please study well enough photo Nh 69722 and than come back to me after a very careful analysys.

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_: " I suspect someone just chose arbitrary dates relating to the action rather than the actual date of recording. "
Hi Sean,
you are free to suspect whatever you want, but without any proof, the recording is dated 28 May 1941, on board HMS Norfolk. Full stop. You can ask the BBC and the IWM to confirm or deny, please try.
you wrote: "There is no likelihood of BBC crews being in all these locations to record highly secret material"
In such situation, with Britain struggling at Crete and the war still quite discouraging, I think it's more than likely that BBC teams (if not yet present on board) were sent to board all the ships involved to have news and interviews that can help "morale", in agreement with the Admiralty.
Could you please explain what is "highly secret" here? Hood sinking was already announced, the celebration of a victory is never secret in war and propaganda was well known to British as well as to Germans.


Dunmunro wrote: "I also find it very interesting that A&A only want to use only those parts of W-W's recording that they feel supports their position, but won't accept W-W's very clear statement about the open fire sequence which, of course, completely destroys Antonio's reconstruction of the battle."
Hi Duncan,
I have pointed out, well BEFORE you did it, this point (n.8 in Antonio recap) and I have explained why I don't believe it. No existing reconstruction can work with Bismarck opening fire at 5:52:30 / 5:53, because this would imply a ridiculously slow RoF (or an even more ridiculous high output loss) for Bismarck. In the same interview, W-W says that Hood exploded 2 minutes after the deck fire, and Jasper is 100% clear that the fire was starting after he fired the 2 vollsalve and the gabellbruppe. Therefore, the fire CANNOT start before 5:57:45 (at least if you don't want to anticipate also PG open fire time :negative:)..... Clearly something doesn't work in W-W reconstruction.
I never said the interview is "the truth". I said it fairly matches Antonio's reconstruction (both of the battle and of the subsequent "embellishment" of the facts) in all aspects except point 8.

I also say it confirms that this officer was declaring things and then changing his declarations a bit too often.... :kaput:

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:46 pm, edited 7 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,

@ Alberto,

you wrote :
I say it confirms that this officer was declaring things and then changing his declarations a bit too often....
I love your diplomatic way to say it ... :clap:

Everybody here in knows that this was my point since years about this all story, ... and this last found official document only confirms, ... once again, ... this Offcer attitude about his own initial declarations.

This clear statement :
... soon after 5 am, in the morning of the 24th of May, smoke was seen fine on the port bow of the Norfolk. This we knew must be the Hood and the PoW ...
Just few days later became :
"At 05:16 smoke was sighted on the port bow, which later proved to be the battlecruisers. At 05:41 Norfolk sighted the enemy at a distance of sixteen miles, at about the same time she was reported by Hood and PoW "


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 Alberto,
you are free to suspect whatever you want, but without any proof, the recording is dated 28 May 1941, on board HMS Norfolk. Full stop. You can ask the BBC and the IWM to confirm or deny, please try.
Love to! :D Here is the official description from the IWM website. OMG!!!!!!! We have all been labouring under the misapprehension Bismarck was sunk on the 27th May 1941!!! No wonder your theories don't make any sense- you thought as did all the rest of us it was the 27th, but here it is - 26th May Full Stop :wink: :cool:

Object description
British Admiral served aboard HMS Norfolk account of sinking of the Bismarck in Atlantic, 26/5/1941
Content description
REEL 1 Account of sinking of the Bismarck in Atlantic, 26/5/1941: first sightings of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen in Denmark Straits; shadowing of German ships by HMS Suffolk and HMS Norfolk; arrival of HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales; sinking of HMS Hood; Bismarck steering south away from pursuers; attack on Bismarck by Fleet Air Arm Fairey Swordfish from HMS Victorious; Bismarck's escape under cover of darkness; sighting of Bismarck by aircraft, 26/5/1941; damage to Bismarck from Fairey Swordfish from HMS Ark Royal; closing for action and torpedoing of Bismarck by HMS Norfolk and HMS Dorsetshire.
Now we have established the IWM/BBC dating for this entry is twaddle, :lol: perhaps you can explain why you want to go all the effort to recover Bismarck's original KTB from the seabed, when you refuse to accept evidence recorded at the time ie 05:50 24th May !941 in original Norfolk's Ship's Log which is available for examination and a copy of which Antonio has in his possession. Oh yes and PG's original KTB says Hood exploded at 06:01:20 both in text and on map.

Just because these original documents, also including W-W's official report don't support the bizarre/byzantine theories developed as a result of ignorance of the accuracy possible in W-W's original guesstimate (20,30,000), when we know he had no access to Norfolk's rangefinder, we are required to ignore these sources, or at worst, accept the writers deliberately lied as some kind of fantastical cover-up.

Antonio, do you accept that Norfolk's Log says: " 05:50 Hood and Prince of Wales in sight 220 degrees 14 miles." ?

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,

you asked me :
Antonio, do you accept that Norfolk's Log says: " 05:50 Hood and Prince of Wales in sight 220 degrees 14 miles." ?


Of course I accept what is written into an official document, ... and as always I evaluate the input very carefully.

In this case on that Norfolk War Diary page of May 24th, 1941 :

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
....

What do you notice on the above written timings ?

Have you realized that with Norfolk having Hood and PoW on 220° at 14 sea miles at 05:50, ... she is going to have them at 10 sea miles at 06:00, ... with Bismarck at 11 sea miles too ? Do you remember the Diagram B ?
ADM1164351DiagB.jpg
ADM1164351DiagB.jpg (27.03 KiB) Viewed 862 times
Does this correlate with something signed by RearAdm Wake-Walker, by Capt Phillips, and by Commander Luce at Hood First Adm Blake board ?

Is this what you are suggesting me to evaluate ? ... and to accept ?

Now it is your turn to accept something Sean, do you recognize and accept this WW statement :
... soon after 5 am, in the morning of the 24th of May, smoke was seen fine on the port bow of the Norfolk.
This we knew must be the Hood and the PoW ...
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