Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3638
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 8:58 pm

Hello everybody,

@ all,

I am glad that now we are moving ahead on a cooperation mode.

@ Herr Nilsson,

I like your snapshot view taken at 05:35, ... which basically is in line with Pitcairns-Jones and my work.
Only small problem I see is that we have some data at 05:35, soem at 05:37 and some at 05:41, ... anyway, all is close and can be worked out with some small adjustements like you did.

You used all correct bearings I see : 334° PoW to BS, 350° PoW to SK, 276° NK to BS, 320° NK to SK, 18° PoW to NK, 15° BS/PG to SK.

@ Wadinga,

I see you used our last article map ( no problems you can use all you like and neeed from me/ us ) as base reference and you made some adjustements moving the GREEN line we made, ... and realizing your PURPLE track a bit on the right ( north -east ).

From what I see you are not modifiyng a lot, and if I compare what you did with the snapshot at 05:35 Herr Nilson showed above, which basically I fully agree with, ... and we are currently evaluating, ... I notice those differences :

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. (Note that on The Plot at 05:36 is 315°and is 318° at 05:41; 320° is at 05:41 on Norfolk strategical map)

on the last 2 bearings I notice those differences :

E) 18° PoW to NK, in your map is 27° ( +9°).
F) 15° BS/PG to SK, in your map is 20° ( +5°).

Now, the 18°from PoW to Norfolk ( ref. E ) was traced by Cmdr Pitcairn-Jones on the Plan 4, being taken from PoW maps, either the one you showed us and the one Marc used too.

The 15° between Prinz Eugen/Bismarck to Suffolk ( ref. F ) is defined by F.O. Busch book on 1943, and it is in line with Suffolk radio message at 05:22. 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, especially when we consider the 15° Prinz Eugen bearing declaration in the opposite direction to Suffolk ( mast ) on tat timeframe, as confirmed by F.O. Busch on board the Prinz Eugen.

I understand all your other parameters after, but we can look at them after we establish an initial agreed reference point snapshot starting figure, and modify according to the needs the Suffolk and Norfolk tracks after, because we have now available their strategical maps and we do not only have to refer to their tracks on " The Plot".
For the beginning evaluations I propose to freeze for a moment " The Plot " tracks and references, ... and use mostly the bearinsg and the strategical map tracks of Suffolk and Norfolk we have, scaling them up enlarging them.

I know we have to respect many other bearings and distances after, ... and we will try to do it, ... of course.

My proposal is to use for 05:35 positions the snapshot figure showed us by Herr Nillson which I agree with.

This one :
Herr_Nilsson_01.jpg
Herr_Nilsson_01.jpg (86.06 KiB) Viewed 2266 times
Immediately after the 05:35 snapshot figure, ... we should try to do the same for the 05:37 and 05:41 snapshot figures too, ... and it will NOT be so easy to do it, ... and agree on all 3 figures among us all, ... trust me.

Lets agree among us about this initial goal.

Please provide your opinon and evaluations, agreement or disagreement and/or supporting better evidence and related information in case.

I think this approach should be fair enough to evaluate among us all the eveidence available.

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 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:52 pm

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: 3638
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:23 pm

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: 1565
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by wadinga » Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:17 am

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: 2696
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:11 am

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)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3638
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:31 am

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: 3619
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by dunmunro » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:32 am

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: 2696
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:05 am

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)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3638
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:42 am

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 2170 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 2170 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: 1257
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:04 am

@ 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: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:09 am

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: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:13 am

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: 3638
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:51 am

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: 1257
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:59 am

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: 3638
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:05 pm

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 )

Post Reply