Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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 »

Dave Saxton wrote:
Cag wrote:.......Where as for others it's due to new evidence between the two inquiries or evidence from new sources or just incorrect or mistaken entries.

I agree that the 'fact' is that there are disparities in evidences for a great deal of evidences between the two inquiries and reports, but proving the real or hidden reason for these without any other substantial evidence is almost impossible, as there are plausible reasons and other facts for and against, therefore it can only ever be opinion.............
Cag.

There will always be a degree of uncertainty for the historian when evaluating evidence. Some degree of conflicting data and reports are the nature of the beast, because mere humans make and record the observations.

When dealing with military history there is also the fact that misinformation is sometimes deliberately written into primary documents, official reports, official histories, semi public, or secret inquiries, and also particularly communications. Why?

It is done as a counter Intel technique. It cannot be guaranteed that the information contained even in top secret materials will not somehow fall into the hands of an enemy or a potential enemy. It cannot be assumed that people who have read secret documents will not fall into the hands of an enemy. Of course, it would be foolish to assume that communications are ever secure.

There are two examples of disinformation being deliberately written into primary documents and reports I can think of right away. One is the writing into documents and reports that the mines that sank many Allied ships in the channel in 1944 were conventional magnetic mines or acoustic mines. The Allies knew that the mines were a new type of advanced mine with a pressure trigger, which there was no effective counter to. However, they did not want the enemy to know how effective their new weapon truly was. This was kept secret for decades after the war, because they did not want the Soviets to know either.

Another example, during the Anzio operations the Germans successfully jammed several Allied radars. The Allied counter was to pretend it didn't happen, because they did not want the enemy to know that their jamming measures were effective.

I don't think that this type of thing was widespread, but suspect in some cases were there is conflicting data or data that does not make sense that this could be the case. There will always be a degree of uncertainty about some things.
Can you give some concrete examples of falsified reports?
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: "Bismarck had 15cm guns as well."
Hi Duncan,
are you now saying that W-W was even fearful of the BS 6" guns, being a heavy cruiser squadron commander ? :negative:

you wrote: "PoW was not hit after she began a series of high speed turns, but this was not something that W-W's cruisers could do and still close the range and/or engage Lutjens with accurate 8in fire."
Yes, they could, HAD Bismarck decided to engage (suicidal) one of them instead of BC1. In this case they would have been more than justified to run away without worrying anymore of closing / firing on BS.
Such an action would have hugely advantaged Holland (but Lutjens was not such a stupid....)


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:02 am, 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)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Wow such a lot to read and catch up on! If I miss something please forgive me.

Hi Alberto again I agree, if that is your opinion of Wake-Walker that's fine, but it is still opinion not fact.

Hi Antonio, I think we are at crossed purposes here, may I try to explain in a simpler way? I will be as polite as always and please do not take this as a personal attack, it is not but an attempt to try and help you understand my problems here.

You have produced your work and published, well done. It is a well presented well worked article I've no doubts about that what so ever. Let us now imagine someone out there has been following all the posts on the various threads regarding the idea of a cover up.

They have read the alternative explanations of the pieces of evidence you have used and made up their own mind of what they believe happened. They decide to publish their own version of events. They set out to put forward answers to the fundimental questions, they decide to give examples of cases of court martial actions for what would be considered lesser crimes.

They decide to produce their own equally plausible battle map and give equally plausible reasons for all your evidences that suggest a cover up, but that now suggest there was not one at all. They decide to show all those sacrificed in war by leaders (the generals in the western desert or Tom Phillips or Holland himself) suggesting that Wake-Walker and Leach were not special enough to warrant such a cover up action.

They show the folly of an idea that a leader getting bad news of the loss of a ship, getting good news of the destruction of the cause of that loss then having to fabricate good news to cover up a self imposed self created bad news.

They decide to show evidence that suggest that both Wake-Walker and Ellis did just what the powers that be wanted them to, suggesting no case to answer. They show evidences for tactical awareness of the moment, and of follow and flank mark etc etc the list goes on and on.

What would we do?

Well personally I would look at the work to see if it has merit, good points, plausible answers but also note points that don't fit or seem to have a different equally logical answer. Then I'd use the forum to politely suggest that certain of this persons interpretations may have other equally plausible explanations, and ask them their opinion on that and I'm sure you would too!

We would then have two versions of events, two theories, two different interpretations of the evidences, two opinions.

However these theories could not be called facts.

Neither of these pieces of work could, or can, be promoted as fact, they are theories. They may be very good very plausible very well put forward theories but stil only different interpretations of the evidences. This is my problem, i am very happy to accept and agree with someones opinion, or see the merit in someones theory, even agree with it, but I'm not happy when I'm told I must realise it is now a fact, I hope you understand.

Mr Saxon, thank you very much for your help, I agree with what you say. I am by no means as expert as yourself or other contributors on this forum, I am a bumbling idiotic amateur! I have been inspired by the work done here and the way information is exchanged without the need of ego or thought of gain.

I have researched reload times at differing gun angles, how guns were aimed and different salvo proceedures, how to use d/f and it's implications, how to plot bearings and distances on maps and how much error must be built in. How to sift witness evidence by correlating each person's evidence to others at their action station and although all done for my own amusement, I thoroughly enjoy it! I agree the differences are immense and deciding fact from fiction is hard.

Human nature is to replay tbe events you have experienced, to try to understand what should or could have happened or what could or should have been done in ones mind. Within short periods of time, and with others accounts influencing your own, the could should would becomes did. This is hard to sift through too.

My only problem is in doing all the above I have found that we can all have a sequence of events that appears plausible, we can all have an interpretation of what occurred from various disparate pieces of evidence, but it cannot be called a fact. I may be wrong here, surely the only people who knew the facts were alive in 1941 and are no longer with us?

Our only recourse now is to interpret bits of evidence left behind, but still it is only our interpretation. If we try to read between the lines or search for a truth, well my truth may be different to yours due to various reasons, upbringing, social, cultural and geographic differences, there are so many. We can put forth our theory and allow the world to decide what they wish to believe, but can we say it is now a fact?

Best wishes
Cag.
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: "Bismarck had 15cm guns as well."
Hi Duncan,
are you now saying that W-W was fearful of the 6" guns, being on a heavy cruiser ? :negative:

you wrote: "PoW was not hit after she began a series of high speed turns, but this was not something that W-W's cruisers could do and still close the range and/or engage Lutjens with accurate 8in fire."
Yes, they could, HAD Bismarck decided to engage (suicidal) one of them instead of BC1. In this case they would have been more than justified to run away without caring anymore of closing / firing on BS.
Such an action would have hugely advantaged Holland (but Lutjens was not such a stupid....)


Bye, Alberto
It should be obvious that 38cm guns are more accurate than 15cm guns, so a first salvo hit by 38cm guns at ~18k yds would not be unlikely.

The County Class cruisers were almost completely unarmoured, with only a very narrow strip of armour protecting the magazines and with only splinter proof deck and side protection for the machinery. The 8in turrets only had 1in of armour so they were very vulnerable to 15cm fire.

Norfolk's armour in mm:
Protection: Magazines were protected by 111 (102mm armour on 9mm plating) - 25mm sides and 76 - 25mm platform deck. Machinery was protected by 25mm bulkheads and 32mm deck. Steering gear has 38 - 25mm horizontal protection.

Suffolk: new 114mm belt 1.8m in height abreast machinery and transmitting station was fitted in 1937. 102mm internal plating was added to the sides of boiler room fan compartments. One deck was cut down abaft "Y" turret. Deck and turret protection as per Norfolk.



Dave Saxton can tell us more about Hipper's shooting at the Battle of the Barents Sea.
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 Duncan,
a first salvo hitting from 10 sm was very very unlikely, as demonstrated by the 15" salvos fired by BS from 6 sm (not 10sm....) against Norfolk at 20:30 on May 23, with just a near miss, without even trying to use her 6".....
Of course Wake -Walker may have heroically though that " there is always a danger running at the enemy,.. at a close range.." as we have all be delighted to hear from his own mouth...... :oops:


I'm really disappointed of your confirmation that in the Royal Navy a flag officer commanding a squadron of 2 heavy cruisers armed with 8" was fearful of BS 6" guns from 10 sm. I agree heavy cruisers are not immune at any range against 6" (however these guns had max range around 23.000 meters and they were unable to hit the PoW at distances down to 14500 meters...... :shock: ) , but, in a decisive battle, I guess the duty of a flag officer is to bring his ships in action, despite the risk to get some small caliber hits on board.... :negative:

Again, the comparison with PG, kept in the line and targeted by 15" shells, is embarrassing.... :oops:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:58 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)
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:Hi Duncan,
a first salvo hitting from 10 sm was very very unlikely as demonstrated by the 3 salvos fired by BS from 7 sm (not 10sm....) against Norfolk, with just a near miss, without even trying to use her 6".....
Of course Wake -Walker may have heroically though that " there is always a danger running at the enemy,.. at a close range.." as we have all heard from his own mouth...... :oops:

I'm really disappointed of your confirmation that a flag officer commanding a squadron of 2 heavy cruisers armed with 8" was fearful of 6" guns...... I agree heavy cruisers are not immune at any range against 6" , but in a battle I guess the duty of a flag officer is to bring his ships in action, despite the risk to get some small caliber hits on board.... :negative:


Bye, Alberto
A single 15cm hit in the machinery could have crippled either cruiser. Norfolk was engaged in appallingly poor visibility which allowed her to escape although shell splashes and ricochets were noted only 50 ft from Norfolk:
The enemy was met on a closing and opposite course. Norfolk had time to turn away before the first salvo from the 8-in cruiser fell. It fell close on the port quarter and splinters hit "X" turret. I saw this salvo fall and it appeared to me as a broad wall of smoke and water at right angles to our line of fire, and I think that the spread for range and line was very small. On our side of this, the water was pocked with fragments and one complete burnished shell made what I think was its second bounce 50 yards our side of the salvo and ricocheted over the bridge.

Two or three other salvos were fired. I only saw one, and that was very compact and fell astern fine on the starboard quarter when we had turned away and were hidden by our smoke. The range was 12,000 to 14,000 yard
Bismarck/PE was simply unlucky.

Sheffield was straddled by Bismarck's first salvo at 9nm and 5 more salvos straddled after that. Sheffield's armour was much thicker and more extensive than Norfolk's and could stop 38cm splinters from reaching the machinery but Norfolk's machinery armour wasn't proof even against 38cm splinters.
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 Duncan,
I give up here. :stop:
If you consider that a flag officer wearing the uniform of the Royal Navy should be worried about the unlikely probability that Lutjens could divert his fire from a battleship squadron to target his ships, and, even in this unlikely situation, he is worried about the very unlikely probability to receive splinters on board, I have nothing to oppose. I agree there was a (limited) risk, IMO this risk MUST have been taken to support Holland's action in a 2 to 1 superiority situation.

The comparison with PG, kept in the line on a straight course and targeted by 15" shells from 24.000 meters till 15.000 meters for 8 minutes, is anyway very very embarrassing. :oops:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:23 am, edited 6 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,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you wrote :
Antonio,
thank you for the explanation. What I do not understand is why Pinchin had to falsify Norfolk's course between 05:41 and 06:00 AND
to draw Hood's "rough track of joining positions" additionally.
I want to say that the sketch of Hood's track is just a sketch and does not lay claim of completeness. There is no need for falsifying Norfolk's track.
And what if Norfolk's track is really right?
I see your point, and in my personal opinion there is only one way to determine whether the Norfolk track on Pinchin map is correct or not, and it is to compare it with the Norfolk strategical map first, ... since we do not have the Norfolk tactical plots anymore, ... and after to double check all the bearings at first and all the available distances after, ... with all the info's we have about it between 05:00 and 06:30, ... according to Norfolk declared course and speed, ... and mostly using as reference the most correct BC1 ( Hood and PoW ) and enemy ( Prinz Eugen and Bismarck ) most correct available tracks, ... in scale and with the correct references.

That is why I invited everybody on play with it ... with that map and data.

@ CAG,

I see all your points, ... still remain the fact that those documents have been altered and we have declarations before and after the occurred modification/alterations.
We do have the reason for it as declared by Adm Tovey to McMullen/Blake and on the letter to Sir L. Kennedy.

I respect everybody opinion about it, ... I keep mine, ... and every reader now can make up his mind about it given the data and evidence provided on the article.

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 »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Hi Duncan,
I give up here. If you consider that a flag officer wearing the uniform of the Royal Navy should be worried about the unlikely probability that someone could divert his fire from a battleship squadron to target his ship, and even in this unlikely situation he is worried about the very unlikely probability to receive splinters on board, I have nothing to oppose.

The comparison with PG, kept in the line and targeted by 15" shells, is anyway very embarrassing.


Bye, Alberto
W-W's mission was to shadow and report Lutjen's movements and any damage to his ships could have left them unable to carry out their mission. Each cruiser was out of sight of the other (which we all know means that the DofD is wrong) and W-W had only a very rough idea of where Ellis even was, so he was in no position to exercise tactical command of both cruisers. The problem with your argument is that you think that W-W knew exactly what Lutjens and Holland was planning to do and that Lutjens would simply let W-W's cruisers close to 18K yds prior to Lutjens being engaged and obligingly decide not to engage W-W's tinclad cruisers prior to Holland engaging.

Brinkman was criticized by the KM for risking his ship.
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: "W-W's mission was to shadow "
Hi Duncan,
this your opinion and what was said afterward to justify the shameful behavior of the cruisers. You (and all the others here) have never provided any Operation Orders for W_W, clearly forbidding him to do his duty in a decisive battle, when shadowing was well OVER (and needed to be resumed unexpectedly after Hood explosion).
you wrote: "W-W had only a very rough idea of where Ellis even was, so he was in no position to exercise tactical command of both cruisers"
Thanks to his shameful "shadowing" in the night, he was out of sight but he still had a radio.... He did not even alerted Ellis about BC1 proximity....... :negative:

I'm sorry you insist to defend the indefensible, W-W should have started closing range since 5:16 with Suffolk, ready to turn away under smoke in case (improbable) Lutjens would have wished to waste ammunition (he did not against Suffolk round 5:30 when Suffolk was at 10 sm). After 5:37, there was NO risk at all anymore for him: if BC1 could see BS it would be logical to think that Lutjens could see BC1 (as it was the case). However he did nothing, worse he turned to port seeing the enemy, not to close too quickly.... :oops:

At the end, it was necessary to embellish the story to celebrate without embarrassing comparison with PG.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Sep 26, 2017 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
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,

@ all,

for the ones that like to play with maps and tracks, here some Norfolk data inputs :
Norfolk at 05:35 on bearing 18° from PoW ( PoW plan 4 map )

Norfolk at 05:41 on bearing 18° from PoW ( PoW map; on The plot is at 25° from PoW) )

Norfolk at 05:41 having the enemy at 275°/276° ( The Plot ) at 16 sea miles ( 280 ° radio message Norfolk ). PG to Norfolk was 96°, just opposite of 276°. It is 276° on the Norfolk war diary entry.

Norfolk at 05:50 having BC1 at 220° at 14 sea miles ( Norfolk war diary; possible delay of 2/3 minutes ref. open fire time being incorrect too as well as Hood explosion at 06:02 ) so it can be a 05:47/48 measurement

Norfolk at 05:52 having BS at 275/276° and PG at 272° ( open fire on The Plot )
Norfolk gunnery enemy at 30.400 yards from BS at open fire but at 06:06 should be 05:53. No bearings

Norfolk at 06:00 having Hood at 230° at 15 sea miles ( WW report )
Kelburn : inclination of Hood about 50° to line of observation at approx. 20.000 yards. If line of observation was the enemy BS at approx. 270°, ... it seems that Hood was at approx. 270-50 = 220° according to Kelburn

Norfolk gunnery enemy at 27.200 yards from BS at cease fire 16 minutes after open fire at 05:53, which should be at 06:09. No bearings

Norfolk at 06:12 having enemy at 272° ( The Plot ) )

Norfolk at 06:14 having PoW at 210° ( The Plot ) )

Norfolk at 06:20 having Suffolk at 335° ( WW report; no match on The Plot )
Obviously feel free to correct and add anything you have more about it ...

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 »

But Antonio, there is no Norfolk in Plan 4.
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 Nillson,

here the Plan 4 of PoW I was referring to :
PLAN4.jpg
(116.32 KiB) Not downloaded yet
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

Yes, I remember. In this plan Norfolk is just 10 miles away and even when one places her in the right bearing to Bismarck the bearing to Suffolk at 5:35 is wrong. It has to be 315°.

Image
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 Nillson,

you wrote :
It has to be 315°.


Can you explain how you come to this conclusion ?

315° is the bearing between which ships at what time and according to what document or input ?

Thanks and 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