Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby wadinga » Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:24 pm

Hello Alberto,

You say

despite the severe errors pointed out by Antonio,


in my version of your map.

Can you say what they are? :D

I see these, with no qualifying times against them. Without times these observations are meaningless.

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.


B) is not OK because I said
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.)

D) is not OK because I said
The distance from Norfolk to Suffolk at 06:20 is 37,200 yds or 18.6 miles on 328.5T


and these are simply wrong on your map:

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


I have explained why you have been wrong in using the guessed DR positions for the cruisers on the PoW Action map, but you have decided to ignore this.

You say

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)


You must read what I posted, my friend. The ranges I quoted are derived from the revised map. Therefore they confirm independently what Norfolk measured to Bismarck. W-W was wrong with both 20,000 and 30,000 yds according to the revised map (it says 24,300 yds). But since he was merely guessing at the first enquiry, and Pinchin didn't have the PoW track plot at the second it's not surprising.

Now having published your allegedly definitive map "proving" deliberate distortion by officers and men of the RN, Antonio is talking about starting from scratch using the strategical maps, but distorting them with the incorrect positions from the PoW action plot or mysterious triangle positions for Suffolk based on unrecorded single line of position DF bearings.

Marc/Cag are of course correct. The there is exaggeration of a number of features on the strategical maps to allow them to be represented despite the scale. The track plot of PoW's own movements has been combined with Pinchin's Norfolk track because the latter was traced from the missing tactical plot. Both were created by the ARL Admiralty Research Laboratory automatic plotting machine.

All the bearings I measured between Norfolk and PoW/Hood and Norfolk and Bismarck are true blind trials. The two tracks are linked by the log entry only. All other the bearings are taken from the revised map, then compared with signals and reports. Suffolk's track has been located solely on the Norfolk sighting gunfire bearing and yet the Hood open fire bearing half an hour earlier is spot on.

I have not compared my map with the Plot
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 ".


My map shows Norfolk was never closer to Bismarck than 28,300 yds -is that more or less expanded than Pinchin?

I say "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.) - is that more or less expanded than Pinchin?

You have been repeatedly calling for a map from me for a year and yet you virtually ignore it when it arrives. I am happy for you to pull it apart. It is iteration one. Get to work! :D

All the best

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

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Herr Nilsson » Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:42 pm

@ Antonio

Your maps are sometimes hard to read because of the line thickness. Anyway, I think we can rely on most bearings in the plot, if not all, because they are supported by signals.

bearings.jpg
bearings.jpg (102.55 KiB) Viewed 508 times


I have some problems with Busch, because Busch has a lot of mistakes regarding times. Even if his bearings are right, it's not clear to me when they are taken. Personally I would prefer not use them, but would still keep them in mind. I consider them as not so reliable.
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:50 pm

Wadinga wrote: "You have been repeatedly calling for a map from me for a year and yet you virtually ignore it when it arrives. I am happy for you to pull it apart. It is iteration one. Get to work!"

Hi Sean,
you are wrong, I'm sorry. I have already congratulated you for producing a first attempt of a complete battlemap. :clap:

The problem with it is that you have deliberately ignored the 2 key bearings that close the battlefield: PoW to NF (18° at 5:37) and PG to SF (at around 5:30) without being able to explain why you are ok with the other bearings from the same sources (PoW to BS 334° / PoW to SF 350° at 5:37 and PG to NF 96° / PG to BC1 157° at around 5:30) and only discarding the 2 bearings that are annoying for your agenda. :negative:


you wrote: "The track plot of PoW's own movements has been combined with Pinchin's Norfolk track because the latter was traced from the missing tactical plot. Both were created by the ARL Admiralty Research Laboratory automatic plotting machine."

What's your source for the underlined, please (this would be a great discovery as we desperately miss both Tactical Plots...) ?
Where is it written that the NF track comes from her Tactical Plot ? Does his SF track come from SF Tactical Plot ? It looks to me much like the Strategical one..... :think:
The whole work from Pinchin is very debatable (and you have realized yourself, doing your map, that he couldn't be right with his exaggerated distances). I think Antonio is right suggesting to re-work (for refinement) the tracks respecting the NF Strategical Plot that, despite the scale, show quite a different (and more reliable IMO) track / course for this ship (at least from 5:40 till 6:20).


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: 3264
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:37 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I am ok with all the above bearings you wrote on your example map above.

In addition I think we should add the 185° at BC1 open fire from a Suffolk message, as well as the 06:20 from Norfolk to Suffolk on WW report that Wadinga loves so much and it is also " half/partially " traced correctly by Pinchin, ... and of course for the same reason the 2 famous D/6 and D/7 between Norfolk and Suffolk at 05:36 and 05:41, ... that Pinchin nicely donated " partially/halfway " to us as well, ... not to forget the 28° on Prinz Eugen battle map for Suffolk at 05:50 ... :wink:

I am OK to put on second reliability position the 350° between PoW and Suffolk, the 18° from PoW to Norfolk and the 3 bearings from F.O. Busch on his 1943 book, ... due to a not 100 % perfect time correlations.

Do you agree ? is it OK this way ?

I think that anyhow just using your selected list above, ... we are almost done as well, ... assuming we are using the correct German and BC1 tracks, ... placed in between the Norfolk and Suffolk tracks, ... anyway.

In fact as a confirmation of what I am saying, just using one of the 4 maps posted by me on page 12 of this thread, you can verify yourself many of the bearings you listed on your map are already perfectly respected, ... in association with the ones I was referring to, ... it is enough to add and fit the other ones and with minor adjustments we should be already done.

Please verify yourself all I am saying, ...

Plot_redone_adjusted_bearings_007.jpeg
Plot_redone_adjusted_bearings_007.jpeg (79.49 KiB) Viewed 498 times


The 220° Norfolk to Hood is there at 05:50 ( needs to be just added on this map ), ... the 276° Norfolk to Bismarck is there with reference D, ... the 334° from PoW to Bismarck at 05:37 is there ( needs to be just added on this map ) ... the 208° at 06:00 between Suffolk and Bismarck is there already with reference F, ... and finally we just need to add 2 last bearings you listed at 05:20 and at 06:15/16 that I miss on my map above, ... since Bismarck track was not covering this part on this map, ... but it will be very easy to do it.

As I told you, ... adding my additional list as you can verify yourself will not change at all the map, ... and everything goes on the correct direction.

Once as I suppose we will be all in agreement about this, ... we can after just evaluate the secondary reliability ones and decide what to do and make sense, ... but I will be more than satisfied with our 100 % agreement on this above map base, ... since the other are only a fine tuning, ... nothing else.

Let me have your opinions, ... 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: 1233
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby wadinga » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:27 pm

Hello Alberto,

PoW to NF (18° at 5:37)


because there is no derivation for the POSITION of Norfolk on the PoW action plot. I have typed POSITION in Capitals not to be rude or shout but to ask where such a position can have come from. The last time I tried I got some stuff about an unrecorded D/F bearing, but as you and I both know a bearing is not a position.

and PG to SF (at around 5:30)


there is no sighting of Suffolk at 05:30. You are quite happy to argue ad infinitum about the ability of someone in Norfolk to see mantlet doors in Hood at 20,000 yds without accepting that another person should be able to identify a 10,000 cruiser instead of a mast at a shorter distance.

without being able to explain why you are ok with the other bearings from the same sources (PoW to BS 334°


Gyro fire control system


/ PoW to SF 350° at 5:37


because there is no derivation for the POSITION of Suffolk on the PoW action plot. I have typed POSITION in Capitals not to be rude or shout but to ask where such a position can have come from. The last time I tried I got some stuff about an unrecorded D/F bearing, but as you and I both know a bearing is not a position.

and PG to NF 96° / PG to BC1 157° at around 5:30)


From the PG KTB 05:47 Alarm, On horizon abeam of portside smoke trails can be observed.

Herr Nilsson puts it succinctly:
I have some problems with Busch, because Busch has a lot of mistakes regarding times. Even if his bearings are right, it's not clear to me when they are taken. Personally I would prefer not use them, but would still keep them in mind. I consider them as not so reliable.


You say:

Pinchin's Norfolk track because the latter was traced from the missing tactical plot.


and

Where is it written that the NF track comes from her Tactical Plot ?


The legend says "Tracing from Plot of Norfolk" is that good enough? Since you have used it as well as a track of Suffolk in a published article, I would have thought you had more faith in it.

I really appreciate your congratulations but would prefer to hear why you think putting the tracks together as I have done can't work, and a similar "blind Trial" breakdown of bearings, but not including the "spurious" 18 and 350, based on your map.

Pinchin's exaggeration: When you are checking on your scaled version of the Pinchin, can you check what he says for the 05:41 distance Norfolk to Bismarck?

On my map:

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)


All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:53 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I read your post above and if you and Alberto will read mine and Marc too, ... you like everybody else will realize that we you are talking something that will be analyzed after we will agree and the whole scenario that is already well enough depicted on the map I posted here above.

Many of the bearings you are talking about now, ... are already perfectly OK just respecting the well known ones I am currently discussing and in agreement with Marc.

Please be so kind to take a look at it and provide your agreement, so at least we have made a common and good enough step forward.

F.O. Busch and Pitcairn-Jones data, ... we can analyze them after ... once the whole frame will be already agreed and well understood by everybody, ... using the Pinchin tracks for Norfolk and Suffolk and the correct ones, ... so Rowell and the Prinz Eugen battle map, ... for the Germans and BC1.

You have my map done above, ... which includes all the bearings selected by Marc as primary reference and my ones added just on a single map.

Do you agree Sean and Alberto about that map being correct ?

What about CAG and Duncan ? What about RF, Alecsandros, Thorsten ... and all the others ?

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 ?

Postby Cag » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:06 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio, thanks I'll take a look see later on thank you. I'll go through the Suffolk log and report too as if there is a centre bearing and a right cut of together it may help us.

I have been in contact with a couple of RN signal experts who know about D/F bearings etc, they have promised to get back to me as regards the ins and outs. As far as I can tell only with the introduction of HF/DF in 1942 was it possible to estimate a bearing in seconds.

Before this it took minutes due to various reasons and also dependant on type of unit fitted. Ill keep you informed on what I find out, again it may help.

Hi Herr Nilsson yes good idea as there are principle bearings that I'm sure we can discuss and agree on.

Hi Wadinga, I think you're correct the plot tracks were taken from the plots made. There is a very interesting IWM interview with someone who was a midshipman on PoW who describes how the machine worked and how the plot was destroyed on the 24th.

Thanks again
Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:19 pm

Hi all,
@Antonio,
I agree on your proposal for a set of "undisputable" bearings and let's see what we can reconstruct from them.


@Wadinga:
the legend says "Tracing from Plot of Norfolk" but it does not specify whether the Strategical or the Tactical one. The Suffolk track looks like her Strategical one, while the Norfolk is quite different from her Strategical.......even I admit they can differ for "minor" details at this stage (if you agree with Antonio's proposal as well).

We have used the Pinchin's tracks in the Article ONLY because the Tactical ones from both Norfolk and Suffolk have "disappeared", while the one from PoW is still available for us, despite the battle and the blood...... :think:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:47 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)

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

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Cag » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:45 pm

Hi All

Apologies Antonio I missed your post, I'll download that as well thank you.

Hi Alberto, do you have access to the PoW track chart from the 24th? I thought that had been rendered useless by the blood? Do you know the reference as that would be a big help as all I have are the ones from the 29th and Rowells and the plan 4 one. Any help again much appreciated. Thank you in advance,

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:54 pm

Hi Mr. Cag,
sorry my mistake. I was referring to the same document as you mention, that are available and that luckily are much more detailed and large scale than a Strategical Plot, therefore we used them in the Article.
Basically for Norfolk and Suffolk we have nothing similar..... therefore the choice for them is to rely on Pinchin's tracks or on their Strategical Plot.


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

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

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Cag » Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:05 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto no problem, the maps made by the Instructor Lieutenant do show some minor errors (we know that PoW log says 00.15hrs and Leach says 00.17hrs for the turn onto 000° but the map says that the course was 000° at 23.59hrs) which can be accounted for by perhaps the originals being somewhat illegible.

Yes I agree that these are all we have, we are lucky that at least they decided to keep them. A lot of really important documents were sadly destroyed post war so we must count our blessings I guess!

Best wishes
Cag.

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

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Cag » Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:40 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio just a quick question which I apologise in advance if you have already answered this.

PoW and Hood excecuted a turn onto 300° at 05.49hrs, on your map this occurs between 05.50 and 05.51 is there a reason for this?

If I've missed something I apologise and will amend my map accordingly if neccessary.

Thanks in advance

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:50 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

I have just used the PoW available tracks on the known official maps.

Please feel free to show us your map, tracks and we will decide if it is better and more precise.

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 ?

Postby Cag » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:41 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio, just to say I wasn't questioning your map, just asking if you had the turn timings on your map worked out better than the original, ie if you had worked out a correct time for the total process of the turn (e.g. started at 05.49 completed at 05.50,30).

But no worries I can continue to use the one where the turn is at 05.49. Sorry if it appeared otherwise,

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:16 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

it is OK tho challenge and question my map, both the one on my 2005 article as well as the 2017 February one on Storia Militare Nr 281, ... since they were both made just to show the situation with no intention to be so precise and perfect, ... and in fact I have improved a lot them since.

Your analysis can bring to an improvement on those tracks, ... so please go ahead.

Our common goal as said is to agree about Herr Nillson proposed bearings set map and my one just down below.
All those bearings are Official and what is most important they can be easily traced on a unique map as I have demonstrated.

Pitcairn-Jones Battle Summary Nr 5 on Plan 4 and F.O. Busch book bearing inputs are frozen for the moment.

It should be the first step to stop discussing about what cannot be discussed any longer and agree about a common base, ... enabling further and better analysis from that point onward.

I can hardly see somebody in disagreement about what Herr Nillson and myself have posted above, ... but still I like everybody written opinions.

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 )


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests