Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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,

you wrote:
Antonio Bonomi wrote:
@ Herr Nilsson,

the fact that many thought they were at a certain distance, ... and reported it on their radio messages and documents too, ... at different stage anyhow and with different intentions, ... does not mean that they really where at that distance on reality.
...
Antonio Bonomi wrote: @ Herr Nilsson,
...
After 05:41 instead of running straight for the interception keeping his course and just raising up his ship speed, ... he turned into an enemy parallel course with the enemy ships and toward BC1 warships, ... thus avoiding to run a direct interception course but choosing a more protective approach waiting for the events to develop further before closing to engage ...
...
On what basis Wake-Walker should have made his decision if not the distance "measured with the WWII limited precision instruments"? And how should your map - right or wrong - should have influenced him?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

my personal opinion about it is that he thought his ship was at 16 sea miles as he radio communicated too at a certain time with his enemy interception signal at 05:41, ... while in reality he was already much closer than that distance, ... as we can measure with many cross checking bearings taken among various warships including the Norfolk, ... before and after.

It does have not to surprise his incorrect distance evaluation, ... common to many others too even if equipped with better and more modern rangefinders, ... the PoW incorrect distance ( longer ) estimate at open fire is a good example to look at, ... in this case.

Anyway, thinking he was getting closer, ... as said having to choose between closing in and participate to the battle since the very beginning of it as he later did with the Norfolk on May 27th, 1941 during the Bismarck last battle, ... or to alter course keeping a safe distance waiting the battle to develop further more between the major units, ... before joining into as any cruisers shadowing was allowed to do, ... he very evidently in this case choose the second option as the Baron confirmed, ... by leaving the battlefield initially to the ViceAdm Holland battleships.

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 all,
thanks to Antonio's work, this is the only available battlemap (an evolution of 2005 Antonio's map) as per today (if we exclude Pinchin's Plot, already demonstrated as intentionally incorrect). This map has been published on "Storia Militare" n.281 in 2017, after being checked by worldwide known naval expert. I'm sorry the map is not usable here due to its dimensions (2,5 Mbytes) but in case anybody wants it, I can send to friends, to a mail address, as already proposed. Please send me a private message, if interested.
fig.4_Map_20mm_1_Kilometer_reduced.jpg
If anyone has an alternative map, showing ALL ships and respecting ALL cross-bearings, I (and I guess Antonio) will be happy to discuss, else Norfolk was at 11,6 sm from Bismarck at 6:00 and she could have been at 9,2 just sailing a straight course from 5:16 at 30.5 knots (or less than 9 sm moving at 31.5 knots) as per the snapshot already posted here.
Norfolk_straight_course_2.jpg
All other nice drawings, NOT containing all ships, NOT respecting all the cross bearings (including the ones between Norfolk and ALL other ships) and taking into account only partial inputs (like a very debatable distance measured with the WWII limited precision instruments), are totally useless in this discussion.


Bye, Alberto
We know that some of the distances on Antonio's map make cannot be correct because they make Norfolk and Suffolk visible to each other ( O600-0620) when they were not. If this means that the crossbearings are inaccurate, then so be it. Any "worldwide known naval expert" should have been able to spot these errors easily.
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: "....the distances on Antonio's map make cannot be correct because they make Norfolk and Suffolk visible to each other ( O600-0620)..."
Hi Duncan,
the fact that a ship was not visible to another (please specify why NF and SF should have seen each other at 13-14 sm distance, while all attention on board was obviously concentrated into the battle) means nothing. Visibility may easily be different in one direction than in another.

BTW, Capt.Ellis, looking at the "Plot", said he thought they were much closer to Norfolk than on Pinchin's map...... :wink:

Bearings are much more accurate than observations and anyway accurate enough to build a map (please see previous page in this thread) that, for the time being, is the only one putting together the 6 ships respecting their relative positions, annoying as it can be, I understand....


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:31 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)
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
Antonio Bonomi wrote: ...
it is very funny that he saw and recognized correctly both the enemy ships apparently from 16 miles at 05.41 ( to be noticed the 2/3 minutes delay factor on Norfolk war diary time inputs everybody can easily realize by reading the BC1 open fire at 05:55 instead of 05:52/53 ), ... so very likely that measurement was done 2 or 3 minutes before 05:41, ... and was not able to see an realize BC1 warships at same distance of 16 sea miles since soon after 05:00 ... and had to wait until 05:50 to do so, ... while running for close to 50 minutes an almost parallel course to BC1, ... perfectly aware of where the enemy was more or less due to Suffolk taken bearings and radio information.
...
Here is the explanation:
Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "....the distances on Antonio's map make cannot be correct because they make Norfolk and Suffolk visible to each other ( O600-0620)..."
Hi Duncan,
the fact that a ship was not visible to another (please specify why NF and SF should have seen each other at 13-14 sm distance, while all attention on board was obviously concentrated into the battle) means nothing. Visibility may easily be different in one direction than in another, and NF saw.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

never forget that we are listening or reading their own declarations in this case.

Capt Ellis at the Hood board :
425. Have you anything yourself that you want to tell us ? Do you wish to tell us anything further ?

" No, I do not think I can give you anything further that would be useful. It was a very difficult morning, marker refraction, rapidly changing visibility, and this occasion is the first time I have seen my own and the "NORFOLK's" plots put together and it is a surprisingly greater distance than I thought it was. "
Taken from here :

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... .htm#Ellis

RearAdm Wake-Walker recorded interview :
5) 01.00 seconds ... 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 ...

6) 01.15 seconds ... soon afterward the Norfolk sighted the enemy herself the first time since making contact the evening before, at the same time the Hood and PoW became fairly visible closing on the enemy ...
Capt Ellis was surprised about Pinchin distance between Suffolk and Norfolk traced on " The Plot " ... while RearAdm Wake-Walker knew who they were soon after 5 am.

Unfortunately it is too late to ask them why, ... based on what evidence, ... they made those declarations.

Like it is too late to talk with W. Dundas, ... or read/have his full interrogation report, ... we only have his first board declarations, ... and no questions being asked about what happened in there all night long, ... and just before the battle, ...

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... #1stDundas

... it is too late to obtain a copy of Norfolk and Suffolk tactical plots, ... and many more vital information too on both sides, ... it is just too late, ... :think:

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: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hope you are all well, despite a long absence I fear that I find the same old arguments persist. May I ask a couple of questions without becoming involved in a debate?

1. Antelope and Anthony were detached at 12.00 hrs on the 23rd to refuel from Hvals Fjord so I'm not sure why they would be approaching from a southerly position on the destroyer map? According to pow log at 12.00 hrs they were at 62 55N, 21 48W taken from a land fix.

2. Is it suggested that Tovey their Lordships etc allowed embellishments or deceptions in documents to provide excuses for Wake-Walker having not engaged Bismarck during the Denmark Strait battle?

Thank you in advance
Best wishes
Cag.
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 Mr.Cag,

1) I remember Antonio posted the map you refer to, specifying that the tracks of the 2 southern destroyer were just there for giving an indication, being their real position out of the map, but you can check yourself in the original dedicated thread ("May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1")


2) It is a fact (not an opinion) that the initial declarations of the three "involved" officers (Leach, Wake-Walker and Tovey) were very different from their following official versions and that the final ones were all moving in one single direction: embellishing the story and providing justifications for "debatable" decisions/behaviors, as we have discussed at long.

Who ignored, allowed, suggested OR even imposed this "embellishment", we will possibly never know, IMHO.


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

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Thanks Alberto I hope you are well and all is good in beautiful Italy. I mentioned Anthony and Antelope with the PoW position in case it helps you with a direct course to Iceland and then possible change after the loss of Hood.

Here are a couple of facts that you may have to contend with regarding the requirement for any justification.


Ellis biography

"The morning of this brief disastrous battle was May 24th. When fire was opened the Suffolk was roughly 18000 yds astern of the enemy ready to flank mark our heavy ships. We were still calling the Hood when she blew up. To have opened fire from our shadowing position, which it was still neccessary to maintain pending the outcome of the main action, would have been relatively ineffective, with only 4 guns bearing, while it would have certainly have confused the battleships spotting.
The Suffolks tactical function of the moment was to follow and flank mark".

ADM 234/509 HMS Norfolk gunnery and RDF operations.

Point 5. Flank marking

"Norfolk could have flankmarked on the 24th May and attempted to do so on 27th May. Her team lacked experience and I fear the results were not of great value. I feel it is important that all cruisers should have a well drilled and experienced flank marking system, and that when firings are taking place at Scapa ships should go out and flank mark even if the results are not used".

If both these officers considered their role to be following and flank marking but not engagement, and Tovey Pound and their Lordships considered their role to be the same, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, why would they require justification for delivery of the enemy to BC1 and attempted following and flank marking?

The only thing I remember Wake-Walker being asked to justify was why he did not re engage Bismarck with PoW after Hood had sunk?

I wish you luck in your endeavour to understand why embellishment was required,

Best wishes
Cag.
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 Mr.Cag,
I hope everything is ok with you as well.

If the mission orders (that were never made available, BTW.... :think: ) were explicitly excluding any engagement, as you seem to suggest, why did Ellis add: "......To have opened fire from our shadowing position.......would have been relatively ineffective with only 4 guns bearing,....." ?
Isn't it already a "justification" ?

If Norfolk mission was flank-marking only, why did W-W quickly open fire on May 27, disabling Bismarck fire direction ?

As Lord Nelson said: "No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy." :clap:


In any case, as I said, the single-oriented modifications to initial declarations are a fact (and the ones from Wake_Walker were even quite hilarious as per this last interview :lol: ). I don't need much luck to prove anything,
I just get to the logical conclusion that an "embellishment" was felt as necessary and it was actually done, as the comparison between the incorrect Pinchin's Plot and the most recent battlemap from Antonio (see pag.7 on this thread) clearly demonstrates.


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

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

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

welcome back on this discussion, and I hope all is OK for you and your family, ... which is the most important thing.

Back on this historical re-construction long discussion, never forget that they were simply applying a received direction on what to do, ... in these type of situations.

As I already posted on : » Sat Aug 08, 2015 6:44 am - by Antonio Bonomi
Hello everybody,

Guidelines received by Admiral John Godfrey ( Naval Intelligence Director ) from Sir Winston Churchill on September 1939.

" Good news was made to seem better; bad news was toned down, delayed or sometimes suppressed ".

From : David Reynolds - In Command of History - London - Penguin 2005 at page 114.

David Reynolds is Professor of International History at Cambridge University and a Fellow of Christ's College. He is the author of two prize winning studies of Anglo-American relations in World War Two - The Creation of the Anglo-American Alliance, 1937-1941 and Rich Relations: the American Occupation of Britain, 1942-1945 - and One World Divisible: A Global History Since 1945.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0141019646/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

The above declaration is confirming what evidence on several occurrence we are discussing about clearly shows.

There was an intentional alteration of the events, ... for war propaganda reasons.

As simple as that ...

Bye Antonio :D
So, it does not have to surprise now that they altered the events and the declarations, ... applying the received directions for the war propaganda reasons, ... did NOT proceed with an inquiry/court martial, ... submitted the altered reports for the Admiralty needed Official approval, ... and finally merged those Officers with all the other ones involved on the successful hunt for the Bismarck, ... enabling the recognition and the medals.

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: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

I'm ok thanks Alberto, glad you're ok.

I agree and realise the mission orders were not available but from both these pieces of evidence, the fact that Suffolk did not participate in the battle (only firing when thought to be under attack) and that in not one piece of documentation including the cabinet war papers does it mention any question as to why the cruisers did not engage, I think we can perhaps suggest that following and flank marking was perhaps the priority mission?

As to why Ellis includes his statement of ineffectual fire, well maybe because it's a biography intended to give the relative information and explanation to a possibly uninformed reader, not an official document intended for official use.

HMS Norfolk just after 05.50 turned toward the enemy, her recorded speed on her log of 30.0nm covered between 05.00 and 06.00 matches her full speed data logged on page 1 of the same document. We do not know the purpose of this manoeuvre.

I think it was Mr Paul Cadogan that correctly suggested somewhere that if one thing is certain, no one present on that morning imagined that the Hood would be lost at all, never mind so quickly (the Germans were amazed). We seem to thrust onto Wake-Walker the need to be in a certain position by a certain time giving him tremendous forethought.

I think it logical to imagine that Wake-Walker had a mission, to follow Bismarck, deliver it to BC1 and if neccessary to continue to shadow without pushing the enemy into any manoeuvres that would hinder the Home Fleet. I don't think, but cannot say for sure, that engagement was out of the question, but how and when it was to be possible or effective (as on the 27th) was declared null and void thanks to the horror of what happened.

Hi Antonio,

I hope you're well, and the Tirpitz books are on going and getting the plaudits they deserve, hopefully a 1 200 Bismarck conversion kit is fast approaching too, I'm your next customer! I understand your point, the good news was already there in that Bismarck had gone, so im not sure if Wake-Walker did what they wanted him to why there would be need of a good news cover up?

I just wish you luck in trying to find the answer.

Best wishes
Cag.
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 Mr.Cag,
whatever we may think about this topic, again, I don't need luck to demonstrate that the declarations of these officers were modified in one direction only: it is a fact.

For me this is an embellishment needed to justify (e.g. in case of W-W) the British cruisers behavior in comparison to the much greater contribution of the Prinz Eugen that stayed in the line, fired at enemy battleships and damaged both of them.

We can have different opinions of course, what really matters is that the incorrect declarations (like the unawareness of W-W about BC1 vicinity, the 15 sm distance from enemy of both cruisers, the jamming of the Y PoW turret as a reason for the disengagement, the 6:13 as PoW retreat time, etc, etc.) are now cleared by a much more precise (I don't say perfect yet) reconstruction of the whole (6 ships) battlemap.


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

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

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

first of all the serious stuffs ... :wink: ... the Tirpitz books are going great, ... we are in process now to release the 4th out of 5 for the Tirpitz.

Second the modeling, .... I am working a Tirpitz on scale 1/100 for the Tirpitz Alta Museum, .. being a donation I have to finish up on behalf of an old Norwegian modeler friend recently passed away,... to have his desire and dream becoming reality, ... as I promised to him and his parents now.

I hope too that a Bismarck to Tirpitz conversion kit will be soon released for the Trumpeter 1/200 Bismarck kit, ... lets hope for it soon, ... I will make it exactly like I am doing it now by modifying currently an Hachette kit from Bismarck to Tirpitz on scale 1/200 too, ... unfortunately De Agostini seems to have stopped their release of a Tirpitz on scale 1/200 in Germany.


This you wrote and asked :
I understand your point, the good news was already there in that Bismarck had gone, so I am not sure if Wake-Walker did what they wanted him to why there would be need of a good news cover up ?

I just wish you luck in trying to find the answer.
I already found the answer and it is easy for you to check it too.

Everybody initially was releasing initial messages and declarations, especially Leach ( radio message ) and Wake-Walker ( First board and interview ), but also Tovey too on May 30th, 1941 to Admiralty.

When they became aware of the possible inquiry and court martial they stopped everything and waited for Adm Tovey to conclude his " deal " with Adm Pound and come back with the " solution " of the case.

In fact it was Adm Tovey to " coordinate and release " by early July 1941 the new version of the events ( altered and modified ) by " driving " also WW and Leach Official reports too, ... a lot different if compared to their own initial declarations.

Capt Ellis was still at sea and it was not difficult to convince him about how to release an " acceptable " version of the fact to be declared. He will write the truth on his own biography only well after the war ended when he was living in USA ... :wink:

It remained to eliminate some already very superficially signed Official records, ... like WW initial declaration to the First Hood board of Inquiry, ... of being at 20.000 yards from Hood and 11 sm from the enemy, ...and it was done with the Hood Second board and "The Plot" done on purpose, ... before asking the Admiralty to accept the new set of facts, distances and declaration, ... provided buy the Adm Tovey summary on his dispatches, ... the ONLY document the Admiralty board was going to refer to and to acknowledge and accept, ... as we well know by their Official response.

I do not need any luck about the above, ... all is available and to be verified by everybody wants to realize the events and their sequence.

What I need luck to, ... is to find the Official interrogation of William Dundas, ... the midshipman working that night on the Hood chart table on the Hood Compass Platform aside Comm. Warrand and ViceAdm Holland, ... never released to anybody by the Admiralty. He was one of the 3 survivors and ... never released anything after, ... despite being on the most important place that night and having plotted all ship tracks and heard a lot of very interesting situations for sure into the Hood Compass Platform area all night long, ... until they sunk.

What I need luck to, ... is to find the Norfolk and Suffolk Official tactical plots, ... ALL disappeared from the official available records, ... that will demonstrate for sure what I am re-costructing using what I have, ... mostly the official available bearings and their strategical plots.

What I need luck to, ... is to find the Official Jasper gunnery plot of the Prinz Eugen ... :wink:

Any help like in the case of the recent available WW interview, ...which confirmed once again all I have re-constructed in clear words by himself, ... any help will be welcome 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 )
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,

@ CAG,

welcome back on this discussion, and I hope all is OK for you and your family, ... which is the most important thing.

Back on this historical re-construction long discussion, never forget that they were simply applying a received direction on what to do, ... in these type of situations.

As I already posted on : » Sat Aug 08, 2015 6:44 am - by Antonio Bonomi
Hello everybody,

Guidelines received by Admiral John Godfrey ( Naval Intelligence Director ) from Sir Winston Churchill on September 1939.

" Good news was made to seem better; bad news was toned down, delayed or sometimes suppressed ".

From : David Reynolds - In Command of History - London - Penguin 2005 at page 114.

David Reynolds is Professor of International History at Cambridge University and a Fellow of Christ's College. He is the author of two prize winning studies of Anglo-American relations in World War Two - The Creation of the Anglo-American Alliance, 1937-1941 and Rich Relations: the American Occupation of Britain, 1942-1945 - and One World Divisible: A Global History Since 1945.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0141019646/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

The above declaration is confirming what evidence on several occurrence we are discussing about clearly shows.

There was an intentional alteration of the events, ... for war propaganda reasons.

As simple as that ...

Bye Antonio :D
So, it does not have to surprise now that they altered the events and the declarations, ... applying the received directions for the war propaganda reasons, ... did NOT proceed with an inquiry/court martial, ... submitted the altered reports for the Admiralty needed Official approval, ... and finally merged those Officers with all the other ones involved on the successful hunt for the Bismarck, ... enabling the recognition and the medals.

Bye Antonio :D
Antonio, the above directive applied to public information releases not to classified internal reports.

Submitting a false report was a criminal offence.
Post Reply