Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by wadinga » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:55 pm

Hello Cag,

You are undoubtedly quite right and Dave Saxton is quite right: (and I said something similar.....)
Hi Dunmunro, I don't think it matters really what date is on the tape, Wake-Walker was no fool, he would not tell a BBC reporter anything that would be sensitive or a gift to the enemy, even if that interview was never aired.
Amongst the documents I was looking at this afternoon at the National Archives, Kew, was a list of complaints from the Naval Intelligence Division to the Admiralty about information they felt should not have been released in the Official Despatches :shock: paragraphs of it. The idea that the first people to find out about the action from W-W was a BBC sound crew is laughable. Particularly if he blew the Machiavellian Plot he was hatching by telling an unknowable truth and then trying hide it when he wrote his report :lol:

NID were horrified that phrases used in the Despatches, similar to wording in reports from the ships, might provide cribs for B-Dienst to decode things . There are half a dozen arse-covering memos backwards and forwards claiming wording had been approved etc etc.

Besides, what A&A studiously ignore is that Capt Phillips' Ship's Log written at 05:50 confirms the truth written in W-W's report and the obvious fact he could not know BC1 was ahead of him, when the destroyers he thought were with Holland were 60 miles behind.

It will take a few days to assimilate what I have seen, but let me tell you, in two thick files I have found only one criticism of any officer's actions. ACNS Tom Phillips wrote a note saying having studied the track charts he didn't think Dalrymple-Hamilton's movements in Rodney were praiseworthy enough for an award. There are no criticisms implied or actual of Leach or Wake-Walker in any of the material I have seen. :cool: Pound overruled Phillips and put through an award for the man whose guns pounded the Bismarck to bits.

Tom Phillips :evil: has presumably (somewhere) writhed in torment since December 1941, as those with his knack for hindsight and the track plans in front of them run through his decisions off Kuantan and second-guess the man on the spot with knowledge he didn't have.

Hmmm knack for hindsight and access to knowledge the man on the spot didn't have................. :wink:

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3478
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:38 am

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I was sure you were going to " hang on " on anything providing you a chance to try to refute once again what you cannot reject given the evidence at hand, ... and just as you did few days ago with your laughable SCOOP theory of the smoke on Norfolk port side possibly being the enemy for Wake-Walker given Suffolk radio message incorrect geographical position provided, ... :lol: ... you are now " jumping " immediately on this silly theory by CAG of Wake-Walker words being released to confuse the enemy for propaganda reasons.

For you, as well as for some other deniers supporters at any cost, ... everything is better than the truth as it shows.

I can see the NID controls on half a dozen arse-covering memos backwards and forwards claiming wording had been approved etc etc ... carefully suggesting Wake-Walker to describe his dinner being interrupted by the enemy at a very inconvenient time for him, ... confirming his personal feelings that there was always a danger running too close to the enemy, ... I can definitively realize now how smartly they recorded word by word this propaganda " strategical interview " released in order to " joke the enemy " ... it is just a masterpiece, ... :lol:

Come on, ... try to be serious, ... you as well as the other deniers supporter should try to find something at least more serious to try NOT to admit what we have recently find out that once again, ... and it is another one on top of many lately, ... only confirms my work being correct, ... just like the recent found Capt Ellis autobiography, ... just like the many documents I have found in the archives.

All of them are in favor and confirm my work, ... and nothing was in favor of your deniers approach silly theories so far, ... simply nothing, ... neither a single found evidence, ... forcing you to always have the need to invent something, like in this case, to try to refute the newly surfacing evidence, ... like the " poor old sailor " definition of Capt Ellis, ... or the " dementia " for Adm Tovey, ...etc etc etc ... again, ... everything is better than accepting the historical truth.

Being so silly and creative on inventing your deniers theories now, ... I suggest you now to add the Hood First Board signed declaration of being at 20.000 yards from Hood by RearAdm Wake-Walker on this " smart propaganda " incorrect released information silly theory you like to support now, ... also that one must have been done in order to " joke the enemy " according to your current deniers last theory, ... you never know, ... the enemy must have had someone in there as well so I can see the need to release something to " joke the enemy " in there as well, ... :lol: ... definitively.

After you can add the Adm Tovey dispatches too, ... especially the points 17 and 19, ... intentionally altered on purpose just only to " joke the enemy ".

And you can GO ON and just try to justify all the other evidences that does NOT fit your way to like to see those events on the similar way, ... so you will surely never had anymore the need to have to accept anything you do NOT like.

For you, everything is better than the truth.

It seems to me that you are playing your last desperate cards, ... just like when you tried to use Schmalenbach map and some Bismarck photos you were not able to see and read correctly, ... in order to challenge once again my work in any possible way, ... which is your only real goal from when I started working on the Court Martial and the Articles of war threads.

You should work to help on finding the historical truth Sean, ... the missed historical documents, ... and not only work to try to stop me at any cost and try desperately to leave the things the way they have been incorrectly declared in that period for the well known COVER UP reasons we all know now.

Waiting for your DS battle map now, ... with your evaluated tracks, bearings and distances among the 6 warships involved ...

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
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2930
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Dave Saxton » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:32 am

For the record, my comments about errors and perhaps occasional disinformation in historical evidence was just about being aware of the possibility and the need to take such into consideration. I meant it to be in a general context, and not specifically about this issue. I don't have an opinion about this specific issue. I don't know.

One may have an opinion but certainty may not be attainable with out more or better data.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3478
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:20 am

Hello everybody,

@ Dave Saxton,

I have read your example on the historical context you described above, with no preconceived intentions in any direction from your side Dave.

I realized immediately that it was not in this context, but as you can read it has been immediately used by the " deniers " to try to avoid the acceptance of an evidence even if they perfectly know that WW interview was released on a complete different context.

This was a complete different situation, well defined on his context and with intentional documents alteration for a well known reason that has nothing to do with the enemy, but only about an internal Court Martial initial proposal, later aborted and the need to modify previously released data and information in order to clean the scenario and while avoiding any possible future risk for the involved Officers, just enable thru the Admiralty the possibility to reward also those Officers with some decorations from the King.

Those aspects and context are only an internal strong discipline ( Articles of War ) and rewarding procedure needs ( Admiralty proposal -> King approval ) related to the Royal Navy traditions.

Many book authors wrote about this context in the past, lately the book author Graham Rhys-Jones as been the one better defining this scenario on many aspects and its precise context.
I only did a more accurate research about it and mostly a direct correlation with all available documents and the related occurred alterations.

This WW interview by the BBC has been taken like many others on same days, to celebrate the Bismarck sinking.
It does provide an evidence on how some declarations has been initially released, and after altered by WW himself on his report in conjunction with Adm Tovey, which later used also the altered version by WW, to provide to the Admiralty his own modified version of the events, referencing point 17 on his dispatches of July 1941.

As simple as that ...

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

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

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag » Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:23 am

Hi All

Hello Mr Saxon, firstly may I take the opportunity to say that despite the 'jumping on the bandwagon' of other contributors to try an twist what I have said, I had no intention of implying that you personally thought that Wake-Walker was giving disinformation, or that that is your personal opinion.

I connected your thoughts to what Alberto had said about propaganda, and Antonio's words on embellishment. It suddenly all made sense for me (note I say for me a great deal in my posts to show that is my opinion only) it was a 'lightbulb moment'.

I had thought that the interview had been taken much later on in the war and was for posterity, not taken days after and for the BBC. If it has in any way caused you a problem i apologise, if you read my posts Im sure you'll see I only link your words to my realisation of what may have occurred. What others try to twist is not my doing and I hope that you accept that it was my opinion I was posting not anyone elses.

Antonio and Alberto, I understand your post a about a funny theory now, once again you twist my words, but there is nothing I can do about that. If you also read my posts my inference was that out of the two reports, the official one and the BBC interview, in wartime when the watchword was careless talk costs lives, which do you seriously think would be more likely to be embellished? For propaganda purposes?

Would you not think it also a 'funny theory' that a serving Admiral told the whole truth to a BBC interviewer before even setting foot on dry land to report to his bosses and then got it so wrong by embellishing the wrong report of the two, his official report?!

I may be slow on the uptake, and may have a flaw of becoming very enthusiastic having had a lightbulb moment but please do not twist words to make them appear to be something else, they are not.

It was a ' hey gents what do think of this, it's plausible right? It makes sense! moment. Not some kind of twisted ironic attack which you try to make it out to be, my idea does not destroy anyone else's, it simply asks is this a possibility have we solved this?

The cover theory has been established by yourselves, does a question that if embellishment occurred would it not be in a BBC interview rather than an official report seriously affect your theory that much? Enough to justify outlandish and baseless accusation?

May I add that if you go through my posts i have not belittled anyone's work or opinion, I have never made personal attacks on any other forum members, called people hooligans, I have not made baseless false accusations against anyone, .After this little episode can you both say the same?

Usually I try very hard to include a joke or am indeed self deprecating no doubt to an annoying degree, I try not to argue against something, despite the many attempts to include me in arguments, I try to put another plausible answer or give information that may help. If required I modify my opinion, I'm not in this to see my name in print, I'm here to debate and most of all have fun.

I'm very sorry to say this is now the 2nd time a debate that seemed to be making progress has been brought to a halt by incorrect and false accusation, the last time it was by Antonio, now by Alberto. It does not show either of you in a good light, in reality quite the opposite, personally I have too thicker skin to be too bothered about it, I'm too lazy to give the negative the energy it does not deserve, it is a forum, not my life.

But for those younger or those who do not have such a thick skin it does not really show how civilised debate works, or how they might contribute an opinion without ridicule or perhaps attack. You seem to feel you are constantly personally under attack and yet it is yourselves that in reality lower yourself to that level and resort to those kind of tactics?

But I have no doubt that there will be no re evaluation of your opinion or posts, no apology, you have achieved the aim of stopping the debate.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:09 am

Hi Mr.Cag,
I'm sorry and I beg your pardon if I was unable to understand that YOU made such a mistake reading the dates. :shock: I repeat, I'm not a native speaking English and perhaps your posts are a bit too complex for me....

However, not being able to understand YOUR mistake (please take the time to read a thread since the beginning if you want to jump in and discuss in productive way) and reading your posts above, my only possible conclusion was that you were unfairly joking and inventing a crazy theory just to avoid a serious discussion. :think:


Regarding all the other unfair personal considerations :kaput: you make about me in your post, you are of course free to think whatever you want about me as well as I'm free to think that you have a side taken approach emerging from apparently innocent and impartial dubitative questions..... (you are right, you will not receive excuses for that).

I'm sure you can say I have as well a side-taken approach and I will not be offended by this. I will always be pleased to be considered even too severe regarding the standards that must be required to a Navy officer, especially if he wears the uniform of the Royal Navy.


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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by wadinga » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:37 am

Hello All,

To take some of the heat out of the debate, maybe we should all look at some evidence. Unfiltered evidence.

Up to now we have been granted focussed snapshots of small areas of PoW's action plan on this website, in order to support particular points of view. I had received a photo of similar scope to this below, some time ago, in fact before the Great Conspiracy Theory was promulgated, but this is mine, and is not subject to the constraints I then agreed to. Since the subject is the property of HM Govt their copyright applies:-

Image

Recently we had it confirmed yet again, that the whole basis for the Theory is the 0535_ref_PoW_plan4_03.jpg aka Diamond of Death. It as its original name implies is based on its author's implicit (misplaced) trust in the positions shown for Norfolk and Suffolk. However a cursory view of the whole sheet, shows the tracks which have allowed the end positions at 05:41 and 05:37 to be generated are crude straight lines and not the tracks as actually followed by the ships. How could they be, the PoW navigator had no knowledge of their actual movements. He merely took their transmitted positions from earlier, with their inherent errors and plotted them relative to his own position. Then a simple DR course and speed extrapolation gave positions for their transmission times. The bearings derived from this map, 018 for Norfolk 350 for Suffolk were used to create the DoD, apparently unaware that these positions were completely spurious and merely a best guess based on incorrect information and crude extrapolation.

PoW's navigator never improved these spurious positions in more presentable versions of these maps for reports, and they eventually made it into print. The Historical Branch of the Admiralty, who as I found out yesterday, were still pursuing individual officers of Holland's destroyers for information in 1942, never highlighted the inaccuracy in these positions.

There was a lacklustre attempt when challenged on the DoD to justify these positions with allegations about unrecorded DF activity by PoW, without acknowledging the navigation fundamental that a bearing cannot make a position.

With the full plan available for viewing by all, what are other contributor's thoughts? :?:

All the best

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

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2930
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Dave Saxton » Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:03 pm

To all, It is important when evaluating evidence to try to remain as dispassionate about it as possible. Open minded debate from different perspectives is healthy and it avoids problems of confirmation bias. BTW, nobody here has offended me or need apologize to me. If I have offended anybody, I certainly did not mean to and I apologize.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

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

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag » Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:25 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto thank you for your words, I honestly would bear no ill feeling toward anyone, dont worry. It was just a little frustrating for me when I thought a resolution to a problem may be at hand and then suddenly things went off in a completely different tangent. I have had many a good fair debate with yourself and so honestly your misunderstanding of my posts came as a bit of a shock.

For me the idea emerged that if there was a choice of which report was less reliable, a BBC interview or an official document, the BBC report was the one more likely not to reveal the whole truth. It seemed to solve the argument that was taking place without those who believe in a cover up, or those that don't, losing anything from it. Their theories remaining intact, and further debate was possible on other things.

Mr Saxon, you have no need to apologise, I just did not wish you to think that I had used your advice out of context, it is something I try very hard not to do. I had indeed thought that the interview was dated later and so any discrepancy was due to normal human nature filling things in thanks to hindsight.

But the prompt by Antonio put the interview in context for me and I thought a solution to the argument was a posibility. Your initial advice was welcomed and understood.

Best wishes
Cag

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3429
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by dunmunro » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:15 pm

wadinga wrote:Hello All,

To take some of the heat out of the debate, maybe we should all look at some evidence. Unfiltered evidence.

Up to now we have been granted focussed snapshots of small areas of PoW's action plan on this website, in order to support particular points of view. I had received a photo of similar scope to this below, some time ago, in fact before the Great Conspiracy Theory was promulgated, but this is mine, and is not subject to the constraints I then agreed to. Since the subject is the property of HM Govt their copyright applies:-

Image

Recently we had it confirmed yet again, that the whole basis for the Theory is the 0535_ref_PoW_plan4_03.jpg aka Diamond of Death. It as its original name implies is based on its author's implicit (misplaced) trust in the positions shown for Norfolk and Suffolk. However a cursory view of the whole sheet, shows the tracks which have allowed the end positions at 05:41 and 05:37 to be generated are crude straight lines and not the tracks as actually followed by the ships. How could they be, the PoW navigator had no knowledge of their actual movements. He merely took their transmitted positions from earlier, with their inherent errors and plotted them relative to his own position. Then a simple DR course and speed extrapolation gave positions for their transmission times. The bearings derived from this map, 018 for Norfolk 350 for Suffolk were used to create the DoD, apparently unaware that these positions were completely spurious and merely a best guess based on incorrect information and crude extrapolation.

PoW's navigator never improved these spurious positions in more presentable versions of these maps for reports, and they eventually made it into print. The Historical Branch of the Admiralty, who as I found out yesterday, were still pursuing individual officers of Holland's destroyers for information in 1942, never highlighted the inaccuracy in these positions.

There was a lacklustre attempt when challenged on the DoD to justify these positions with allegations about unrecorded DF activity by PoW, without acknowledging the navigation fundamental that a bearing cannot make a position.

With the full plan available for viewing by all, what are other contributor's thoughts? :?:

All the best

wadinga
Thanks. I agree that the DoD falls apart when all the various factors are taken into account just as W-W testified when he realized how impossible the DoD was.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3429
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by dunmunro » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:26 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:To all, It is important when evaluating evidence to try to remain as dispassionate about it as possible. Open minded debate from different perspectives is healthy and it avoids problems of confirmation bias. BTW, nobody here has offended me or need apologize to me. If I have offended anybody, I certainly did not mean to and I apologize.
Same for me. I try to remain polite and objective but unfortunately I don't always succeed. I always feel badly afterwards if I have, or feel I have, offended someone.

I truly appreciate Antonio's (and Alberto's) efforts to research this topic and to put forward his thesis, but unfortunately I simply cannot agree with a hypothesis built upon a conspiracy theory that requires the author to pick and choose highly doubtful secondary sources over official reports containing information recorded at the time the events transpired.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:33 am

Dunmunro wrote: "I try to remain polite and objective but unfortunately I don't always succeed. I always feel badly afterwards if I have, or feel I have, offended someone."
Hi all,
same for me, I agree with Duncan 100%. :clap:

I truly appreciate Sean, Duncan and Cag competence and dedication to defend their positions and I have great estimation for their efforts. I just cannot understand the refusal of any evidence (I guess even finding the signed letter from Churchill to Pound asking to suspend any internal inquiry and to celebrate (that of course cannot exist) would be attributed to some brain illness or old age or something else....). :wink:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:12 am, edited 4 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3478
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:36 am

Hello everybody,

@ all,

very good, I see we can close the debate about the recently found WW interview, add it to the first source available evidence with the related considerations and move forward.

I agree with Dave Saxton :
It is important when evaluating evidence to try to remain as dispassionate about it as possible.
It is exactly what I have been asking since I started writing on those forums, ... especially lately on those arguments.

If, by responding above, I have personally offended anybody, ... it was surely not my intention when writing the responses, ... but I can easily imagine that being the discussion particularly heated on both sides, ... that could have been the impression, ... and you as usual will have my excuses, ... with no problems.

Moving forward and changing subject, ... suggesting to open a new thread with the title " Norfolk track at Denmark Strait " , ... here what I think about it to recap the situation using already well available material posted already several times :

1) The PoW official map :
PoW_map_02.jpg
PoW_map_02.jpg (64.52 KiB) Viewed 1709 times
2) How the above inputs about Suffolk and Norfolk has been taken and transferred/translated into the Battle Summary Nr 5 plan 4 by the Royal Navy Admiralty - Tactical and Staff Duties Division ( 16/49 ) - Cmdr. L. Pitcairn-Jones D.S.C on the B-R- 1736 ( 3/50 ) :
Pitcairn_Jones_PoW_Plan_4.jpg
Pitcairn_Jones_PoW_Plan_4.jpg (56.08 KiB) Viewed 1709 times
3) In order to provide a confirmation, here how the Norfolk Strategical plan track, once transferred on a correct scale map with the correct Hood/PoW tracks demonstrate that what PoW map above inputs and Pitcairn-Jones work above are not far away from the reality and most likely they are correct, obviously talking about the bearings, ... not about the distances and not about the real geographical position provided.
SK_NK_PoW_at_0320_011.jpg
SK_NK_PoW_at_0320_011.jpg (76.51 KiB) Viewed 1709 times
In fairness I think one must keep in consideration that :

a) PoW plan inputs where taken at the time of the action, probably when Suffolk and Norfolk were radio transmitting looking the time written on the references.

b) Cmdr L. Pitcairn-Jones took them and provided the Official acceptance and confirmation of those inputs from the Admiralty stand point years after.

c) My re-construction work you all well know, is based on a very low detail scale map ( the Norfolk Strategical not having the tactical plot in larger scale ) and consequently if you notice some minor differences I tend to trust more the provided inputs from the PoW map directly recorded, ... rather than my low scale re-construction work that reaches the same conclusions of the above PoW map, ... as you can easily verify yourself, ... but with an unavoidable less degree of precision and reliability in my personal opinion.

Opinions welcome now, ... using Dave above recommendations on the writing attitude of course, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Sat Sep 30, 2017 11:36 am

I've made this some time ago.
Origin_zps0224075f.JPG
Origin_zps0224075f.JPG (86.06 KiB) Viewed 1692 times
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by wadinga » Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:25 pm

Hello All,

This map, modified from Antonio and Alberto’s magazine submission shows what I believe to be a more correct relationship between the tracks of PoW and Norfolk, and I have moved Suffolk as well on a more speculative basis, to match the only documented bearing at 06:20 from her to Norfolk.

The tracks have been moved bodily and they each represent A & A’s work for which I claim no credit whatsoever. I still have issue with the detail of PoW’s turn away. Other minor changes may be necessary. Norfolk’s track has been moved and the old version erased. Suffolk’s new line location is shown in purple and the old one left for comparison.

Having so moved the tracks we then confirm validity with bearings and distances compared against those recorded.
I assume the distance between Bismarck track and PoW is correct with minimum range 15,400 yds or 7.7 miles at 06:02. The bearing is 326.4 and reciprocal.

There is only one “Tie point” available between PoW and Norfolk’s tracks, clearly documented in PoW’s log, where she circles NE to allow her new flagship to pass, before she takes station 1.5 miles astern. Since we know Norfolk’s course at the time we can position PoW’s track accurately, and as might be expected she is now on the same course as her flagship. Shortly afterwards, Wake-Walker as Senior Officer decides he wants PoW to open out to port and the ships diverge.

Image

The distance from Norfolk to PoW at 05:41 is 32,500 yds or 16.3 miles bearing 208T degrees.
The distance from Norfolk to Bismarck at 05:41 is 31,000 yds or 15.5 miles bearing 280T. (“At 05:41 Norfolk sighted the enemy at 16 miles. Wake-Walker’s report. “05:41 Enemy in sight 276T” Norfolk’s ship’s log)
The distance from Norfolk to PoW at 05:50 is 27,100 yds or 13.5 miles on 221 degrees (“Hood and PoW in sight 220T 14 miles.” Norfolk’s Ship’s log)
The distance from Norfolk to Bismarck at 05:50 is 30,000yds or 15 miles on 280.3T degrees
The distance from Norfolk to Bismarck at 06:00 is 28,300 yds or 14.1 miles on 274.5 degrees. This is the minimum range since both Bismarck and Norfolk turn away from each other. (This conforms with range estimates from Norfolk’s DCT.)
The distance from Norfolk to Hood at 06:00 is 24,300 yds or 12.1 miles on 237T. (“At 05:59 Hood blew up. She was bearing 230T 15 miles from Norfolk.” Wake-Walker’s report)

The distance from PoW to Bismarck at 05:37 is 37,300 yds or 18.7 miles on 336T. “Enemy in sight 17 miles [34,000 yds] on 334T” PoW sighting report)

Suffolk’s track has been moved along her mean line of advance so that she bears 335T from Norfolk at 06:20 when her gun flashes were seen. There may need to be adjustment orthogonal to this.
The distance from Norfolk to Suffolk at 06:20 is 37,200 yds or 18.6 miles on 328.5T
The distance from Suffolk to Bismarck at 05:42 is 23,800 yds or 11.9 miles on 200T (before the circle).
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.)
The distance from Suffolk to Bismarck at 06:00 is 35,800 yds or 17.9 miles on 209T (“0600 (B). Enemy bore 208°.” Suffolk Narrative)

I consider the correlations to be so good that this a more realistic representation of the Denmark Straits action. When Pinchin produced his plan for the second Hood enquiry, he had no access to Bismarck’s track and little knowledge of how inaccurate Suffolk’s navigation was. There was no requirement to produce an accurate plan for the Hood Loss Enquiry.
There was little academic enthusiasm to produce an accurate plan in 1941-42.

I am greatly indebted to Antonio and Alberto for giving me permission to adjust their plan. Their excellent rescaling of the various plots has made this current scenario possible. Unfortunately, they made decisions which resulted in them positioning the tracks to support their tendentious argument of cowardice and cover-up instead of using the “Tie point” in the Ship’s Log already pointed out to them. By using the “Tie point” most reported bearing information is closely respected and some range anomalies clarified.

Norfolk was never in effective gun range of the enemy and could not have been given minimal speed advantage if any.
Suffolk was never in effective gun range of the enemy and could not have been given minimal speed advantage if any.
Norfolk was approximately 24,300 yds from the sinking Hood. With no rangefinder information, only a guess was available to Wake-Walker. The actual distance was irrelevant to the Enquiry.
PoW underestimated first sighting range to Bismarck by about 3,300yds which is why mapping the minimum range has provided difficulties.

I would welcome the comments of other interested parties.

All the best

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

Post Reply