The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:56 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:25 pm
Hello everybody,

as I have stated on another thread, I confirm that Capt Ellis, like many others, has been an intentional liar about what happened, by intentionally omitting some facts ( his real distance at certain point of 18.000 yards from the enemy ), …. and substituting them with other facts ( the mirage ) in order to justify what he did after 05:42, … the " U turn and circle " away from the enemy after having received the " Enemy in sight ! " from Holland squadron ( BC 1 ).

I do not care how many reports and when he wrote them, … he lied intentionally as explained above, … and only when he wrote his own autobiography he wrote the real facts ( I hope all of them ).

As a confirmation, … it is enough to plot the Suffolk track respecting her own bearings at various stages to realize it and to verify what from Prinz Eugen ( Busch radar and bearing soon after 05:30 and the bridge bearing at 05:50 ) they have measured correctly, … in line with Capt Ellis autobiography declarations and … omitted on his original report that just like Adm Tovey dispatches is just written in an intentional misleading way.

Intentional liars, … omitting key data and reasons for their actions, … and writing misleading statements instead with false justifications.


Bye Antonio
Yeah, the recorded facts don't match your theory so rather than revise your theory to match the facts...you accuse all the principles of being liars, cowards and criminal conspirators.... :stubborn: :kaput:

Theory that UFOs = space aliens -> reports challenge space alien visitation theory ->therefore...(wait for it) reports must be evidence of conspiracy and cover-up... :!: Problem of theory being at odds with the facts is solved :lol:

Now we can get on with solving the Kennedy assassination and the global warming myth... :(

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:06 am

Hello everybody,

facts and maps here, … mathematics and geometry.
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg.jpg
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg.jpg (66.51 KiB) Viewed 367 times
NO useless words by intentionally insulting " hooligan/deniers ", … but demonstrations, … and everybody will see that you are simply wrong.

Those guys were liars, … and it shows.

Now try to demonstrate the opposite and what you would like to support, … if you are able to.

Bye Antonio
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: 3509
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:35 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:06 am
Hello everybody,

facts and maps here, … mathematics and geometry.

Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg.jpg

NO useless words by intentionally insulting " hooligan/deniers ", … but demonstrations, … and everybody will see that you are simply wrong.

Those guys were liars, … and it shows.

Now try to demonstrate the opposite and what you would like to support, … if you are able to.

Bye Antonio
Mathematics and geometry indeed... and very advanced math and geometry must be involved so that Suffolk and Norfolk are invisible to one another at 28K yds. :oops:

Sorry Antonio, but it's time to go back to the drawing board and try it again... :negative:

Pinchin's map is believable; your's isn't.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Wed Jul 25, 2018 6:18 am

Hello everybody,

done deal, ... the looser can only admit his full incompetence on making a very easy mathematical and geometrical verification on a map, ... or even worst ( and I assume this is the case ) when very evidently proven wrong ... just refuse to admit his pathetic defeat.

This is not the " bullshit " wording you are doing in this forum since years, ... here we are talking a scientific law, ... the real bearings and angle and consequently their real relative distances.

Pinchin map has been demonstrated wrong ( intentionally wrong ) and made to save a coward releasing superficial declaration.
We all agree about it long time ago.

You, just like the other " hooligan/denier " and all your teammates want to prove me wrong ?

Just do it, ... here you have your occasion.

But be aware that this is what Capt Ellis revealed and admitted on his own autobiography ( Churchill archive ), ... and not the intentional lies ( thru evident omission ) and inventions ( mirage ) he was reporting at the time.

Come on, ... do not be shy, ... you as well as your " long tongue teammates ", ... do you want to demonstrate your competence and challenge my work ?

Just do it if you are able to .... otherwise ... I strongly suggest you to simply : Shut Up !

Bye Antonio
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: 3509
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Wed Jul 25, 2018 6:55 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Wed Jul 25, 2018 6:18 am


You, just like the other " hooligan/denier " and all your teammates want to prove me wrong ?

Just do it, ... here you have your occasion.
Your map has Suffolk and Norfolk at 28K yds from one another and yet they are not visible to one another.

Even Ellis in his "true confessions" memoirs where he supposedly unburdened his tortured conscience stated:
It snowed during the night, and the wind rose, About: dawn it
cleared to the southeast and southward, and we could see ice blink
to the north and west, But we still could not see any other British
ship, The Norfolk was still miles out of sight and gunrange when
the action between the Germans and the Hood and Prince of Wales
began
, Of our battleships we could see only the funnel tops and
the gun flashes.
My bolding.

There. I just proved you wrong.

Pinchin's map has sufficient separation between Norfolk and Suffolk so that it matches the observations made from both ships; namely that neither was visible from the other.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7525
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by RF » Wed Jul 25, 2018 7:53 am

It is unfortunate that Captain Ellis is dead and cannot defend his reputation in court.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:05 am

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "Pinchin's map has sufficient separation between Norfolk and Suffolk so that it matches the observations made from both ships; namely that neither was visible from the other."
Why on earth 2 cruiser (not looking for each other) MUST be visible to each other from 13,5 sm ?


1) Unfortunately Pinchin's Plot has the cross bearings taken from NF to SF "truncated" (because it was just a false document produced with the only purpose to enlarge the battlefield and to support Wake-Walker shameful change of distance declarations between the 2 boards.....there are 83 pages demonstrating why the "Plot" is a FALSE document http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495).

2) Pinchin's Plot put SF at 33 sm from Hood at 5:52 (thus making impossible to see BC1 force even opening fire with daylight. Pinchin's Plot put Hood at 30 sm from SF when blown up, that makes impossible the decsription given by SF witnesses of Hood explosion.

3) Pinchin's Plot put SF at 21 sm from Bismarck during the engagement, making it impossible to see the 3 hits on board Bismarck and to correctly "flank-mark" for BC1.

4) Pinchin's Plot is disproved by the Baron (NF and SF being from 12 (NF) to 15 sm (SF) from Bismarck during the battle

5) Pinchin's Plot is rubbished by Busch's reported exact bearings to all British ships and distance from SF (176 hm)

6) even Pinchin's Plot NF and SF tracks are debatable (e.g. they don't allow to respect the NF bearings to PoW from 5:42 to 6:00), in the absence of the Tactical Plots of SF and NF......


You have been proven 6 times wrong, please try again building your own battlemap, using known bearings, speeds and courses.

In alternative, if you are unable to produce your own battlemap, you can try to publish your own book, using Pinchin's Plot as battlemap, if you find an editor crazy enough to help you with it.....


RF wrote: "It is unfortunate that Captain Ellis is dead and cannot defend his reputation in court."
Hi RF,
agree, but we are lucky however that he has left before dying an autobiography explaining how things happened, especially in relation to the loss of contact.


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: 1499
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:27 am

Hello Alberto,
Why on earth 2 cruiser (not looking for each other) MUST be visible to each other from 13,5 sm ?
Because they were desperately looking for one another. It was obvious there was a big navigational bust between where Suffolk said she was and where she actually was. Only by seeing each other could this be resolved. This happened at 06:20 only, when Norfolk saw gun flashes only, because Suffolk was so far away.
Unfortunately Pinchin's Plot has the cross bearings taken from NF to SF "truncated"


There is only one cross bearing, at 06:20. Recorded in Norfolk's log. The other marks have no provenance.
Pinchin's Plot put SF at 21 sm from Bismarck during the engagement, making it impossible to see the 3 hits on board Bismarck and to correctly "flank-mark" for BC1.
Suffolk didn't flank mark. From Ellis account: "The effect of mirage making a hull-down ship occasionally appear hull above the horizon, will be noted."
Pinchin's Plot is disproved by the Baron (NF and SF being from 12 (NF) to 15 sm (SF) from Bismarck during the battle


You accept the Baron's distance and yet still promote the idea that Busch's "a mast" is Suffolk at only 9 miles? How did the Baron let Suffolk into easy gun range without alerting somebody?
Pinchin's Plot is rubbished by Busch's reported exact bearings to all British ships and distance from SF (176 hm)
Oh goody we're back to simply making things up. Where does Busch say Suffolk was at 176 hm? Why did you forget to pretend he used radar to measure the distance?
publish your own book, using Pinchin's Plot as battlemap, if you find an editor crazy enough to help you with it.....
David Mearns has already done it and described his exultation in finding Pinchin's map which he used to find Hood. :lol: If he was using Antonio's map he'd still be out there.................

To RF: Captain Ellis would be one of many pressing litigation for groundless defamation. Cernuschi only alleged institutional cover-up, in order to surpass him for pre-eminence in making up Conspiracy Theory, Antonio has defamed numerous named individuals.

To Antonio:
made to save a coward releasing superficial declaration.
We all agree about it long time ago.

There has only been one person who has ever agreed, and then there was also -Alessandro? Who seems to have disappeared. Nobody else "agreed".

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:21 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Because they were desperately looking for one another."
The desperate need to see each other does not imply any necessity to be visible from 13,5 sm..... :negative:

Wadinga wrote: "The other marks have no provenance."
therefore, according to Mr.Wadinga, Pinchin's Plot is not only a false document but also a grossly approximation, inventing bearings and thus it is useless as battlemap to appreciate any distance, as opposite to Antonio's map.... :lol:
Of course Mr.Wadinga knows VERY WELL where the D/F bearings "truncated" by Pinchin come from for a navigating officer who was on board NF: the radio messages transmitted at 5:35 and 5:40 by Suffolk and detected by radio D/F by NF..... but this is a most annoying fact for him.... :negative:

Wadinga wrote: "Busch's "a mast" is Suffolk at only 9 miles?"
The Baron speaks of NF and SF distance during the battle, leaving the battlefield entirely in Holland's hands ( :oops: ): 12 to 15 sm, perfectly in line with Antonio's reconstruction, with NF at 12,5 and SF at 15 sm from Bismarck, Busch refers to a timing between 5:30 and 5:42, BEFORE the turn to north of SF due to the "mirage" (or Ellis intention to flank-mark as per his autobiography...) and the distance at that time was logically much shorter, 176 hm corresponding to the 9 sm (in Antonio's reconstruction) and 18,000 yards (Ellis' autobiography)....
How did the Baron (or Jasper) leave SF undisturbed ? I guess Lutjens did not intend to waste ammunition against a cruiser following Bismarck from 15 to 8 sm distance during the whole night, that could easily run away under smoke, as already happened, but this question is totally irrelevant here ..... :lol:

Wadinga wrote: "David Mearns has already done it and described his exultation in finding Pinchin's map which he used to find Hood"
Mearns used BC1 last transmitted position (reported by Pinchin in the Plot) + PoW map to find Hood wreck, but I hope Mearns did present it as a realistic battlemap.
Mr.Wadinga can help Mr.Dunmunro to publish a book using Pinchin's map (possibly mixed with Schmalenbach's 1943 map version) as actual battlemap.......good luck ! :lol: :lol: :lol:


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: 3568
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:02 am

Hello everybody,

@ RF,

it is a pity that all this story surfaced only lately, ... because having the persons still available it was going to be a lot more interesting even if not all of them ( probably on both sides too ) would have liked to admit what the reality one can realize now having both sides of the story almost perfectly aligned as far as timing and distances we are able to evaluate more accurately.

It does not have to be under estimated that many reactions have been a matter of seconds under a considerable stress, ... but still, ... the facts at the end are those we can see given the data we have been able to collect on both sides from the available information.

Capt Ellis for example knew what he did, ... since he wrote it on his own autobiography, ... and at that time choose not to declare ( intentional omission ) everything happened with the reasons and distances that he declared only after many years, ... substituting them with the " mirage " visual effect, ... and on this his conduct was far from be correct as an Officer.

@ all,

I still see the " hooligan/deniers " trying to bring into this debate once again " The Plot " by Pinchin, ... simply a pathetic useless trial.

We have already made huge steps forward compared to that intentionally false made map, ... and now if you want to challenge something you have to use real data and make your own map, ... or simply accept what others have been able to do much more accurately and precisely than the Pinchin incorrect map.

You told me years ago to use the bearings, ... with their much small tolerance than the distances, ... and now you are cornered by the available bearings.

No way out, ... you have to accept what the data shows now.

Some has already accepted the agreed bearings and you have just run away from doing it, ... and by doing it you are already admitting your defeat on this historical and mathematical/geometrical challenge.

Your choice, ... if you still want to challenge me and my re-construction work, ... please do it if you are able to.

Do not run away once again, ... as usual, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
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: 1499
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:15 pm

Hello Alberto,
any necessity to be visible from 13,5 sm

Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were seen from more than 17 miles (and we know that was an underestimate). They were searching for each other and never saw each other on a day of exceptional visibility.

I guess Lutjens did not intend to waste ammunition against a cruiser following Bismarck from 15 to 8 sm distance during the whole night



Now you claim Suffolk was within only 17,600m of Prinz Eugen on a day of exceptional visibility and the Baron who was even closer failed to note it, and Busch was unable to recognise a 10,000 cruiser and included this in a report that was supposed to have happened at 05:30 when the PG KTB only reports sighting any enemy at 05:47.


and the distance at that time was logically much shorter, 176 hm corresponding to the 9 sm (in Antonio's reconstruction) and 18,000 yards (Ellis' autobiography)..


Even Ellis' ramshackle memoir says "at the time of opening fire" ie after the 360 degree turn not at 05:30 or whatever time you choose to apply.


Hello Antonio,
We have already made huge steps forward compared to that intentionally false made map

Indeed your intentionally false made map is much better at being intentionally false than Pinchin, who wasn't trying to be that, but had far less information. You have changed the Norfolk's track to something that suits your purposes and still at 06:00 is only at 24,000 yds just 3,000 yds less than the longest hits ever made by warships and then both in low rate of change fire control situations. You have stressed the available bearings, included some which are not real, and that is apparently the best you can do.
No way out, ... you have to accept what the data shows now

No, I'm with Bill Jurens, your manipulated data does not prove your case.

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:36 pm

Hello everybody,

me, Alberto and even Herr Nilsson have agreed on the Norfolk basic known set of bearings showed on the above map.

A similar map can be easily done for the Suffolk and data have been already published by me on " The Plot " and the CS1 threads, so they are not secret at all.
Suffolk was where her own radio communicated bearings to the enemy, the Ellis autobiography and the Prinz Eugen bridge/radar/battle map + F.O. Bush book data defined her position and distance to be in relation to both the enemy and the other RN units that morning.

Wake-Walker report clearly stated that he was keeping the shadowing mainly based on his RDF radio bearings to the Suffolk.

WW_Norfolk_to_Suffolk_bearings.jpeg
WW_Norfolk_to_Suffolk_bearings.jpeg (38.25 KiB) Viewed 304 times

Now it is your turn to say : agree or disagree in clear words.

It seems that the " hooligan/deniers " will choose to disagree ( not a surprise at all ) what mathematics and geometry clearly demonstrate about those tracks and maps.

Find the courage to state it clearly, ... do not be shy or worst, ... cowards, ... so everybody here in knowing mathematics and geometry better than you, ... will realize who you really are.

No more waste of time or running away as you usually do.

I have asked Bill Jurens some questions and so far I have received no answers to them.
Consequently I will not comment on others realizations until I will see, ... read, ... and evaluate them, ... and only after I will explain my personal opinion about it.

Bye Antonio
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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jul 25, 2018 1:16 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were seen from more than 17 miles"
Only someone who has been never at sea (and Mr.Wadinga was....) can think that visibility is symmetrical in all directions......
Bismarck of course is bigger than a County Cruiser.
At 6:20 NF saw SF from 17 sm ONLY because the latter opened fire.

Wadinga wrote: "the PG KTB only reports sighting any enemy at 05:47"
I will not comment again on Mr.Wadinga's copyrighted invention about the Busch's "mast" being a trawler following Bismarck at 176 hm on bearing 15° (the perfect match of 195° reported by SF....) , it will be a great scoop for his next publication, if he can find a courageous enough editor.

PG sighted BC1 ("port abeam") at 5:47. Suffolk was probably in sight since hours already, as we are sure that SF could see Bismarck AND PG at 4:47 and at 4:56 as per her Strategical Plot visual sightings (luckily not lost as the Tactical ones).....

Wadinga wrote: "Ellis' ramshackle memoir says "at the time of opening fire" "
... and this is an error/approximation (due to the fact he spent few lines to descibe the whole morning events), it was at "enemy in sight" signal and not at open fire, but the distance is perfectly in synch with Antonio's reconstruction and Busch reported ones....



Antonio Bonomi wrote: "me, Alberto and even Herr Nilsson have agreed on the Norfolk basic known set of bearings showed on the above map......Now it is your turn to say : agree or disagree in clear words."
Hi Antonio,
come on, don't be so optimistic, my friend.
They will never agree because deniers cannot accept such a set of proven bearings geometrically nailing BOTH NF and SF to their real distance from the enemy ( http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtop ... =90#p79123) !

I don't think they will be brave enough to refute explicitly any of them either. IMO they will prefer to keep on speaking about trawlers, visibility, Ellis memory, Busch's reliability, Baron account, Lutjens decisions, fog of war, tolerances, etc. etc. instead, just to try to divert discussion and to avoid a serious mathematical demonstration, preferring personal opinions .....

Let's see .


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: 1499
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:05 pm

Hello Alberto,
and this is an error/approximation
just like 18,000 yds could be for instance. Once some of the facts are errors then all of the facts need confirmation. Suffolk at 18,000 yds isn't corroborated by anybody.
At 6:20 NF saw SF from 17 sm ONLY because the latter opened fire
I suppose Antonio's map says it was 17 miles. Norfolk saw only gun flashes because the range was very much more than 17 miles.
Only someone who has been never at sea (and Mr.Wadinga was....) can think that visibility is symmetrical in all directions
Suffolk said they could see BC1's tops of funnels and since Suffolk was further away than Bismarck that means more than 17 miles. Probably several miles more. The Suffolk-BC1 azimuth is not so different to Suffolk -Norfolk. Norfolk never sighted anything of Suffolk until the gun flashes and any M/F D/F bearings would have considerable errors.

Wake-Walker told the truth when he said M/F D/F was of utmost value, because her navigational reports were next to useless. Probably a faulty gyrocompass. At least he knew she was somewhere NE of him.
Wadinga wrote: "the PG KTB only reports sighting any enemy at 05:47"
I will not comment again on Mr.Wadinga's copyrighted invention about the Busch's "mast" being a trawler
I give you a free hand to use it, since it is far more likely than Busch being unable to identify a heavy cruiser at only 9.5 miles, or the Baron allowing such a dangerous enemy in to such close range (say 8.5 miles) in outstanding visibility without commenting. It's also unlikely the KTB would be 15 minutes late reporting enemy ships when Busch claims a signal was being made 15 minutes earlier. His timing is simply incorrect.
Suffolk was probably in sight since hours already
All the more reason for Busch to be able to describe her accurately. "A mast" means he had no idea what he was looking at.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:44 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Suffolk at 18,000 yds isn't corroborated by anybody."
Except
1) her course and speed vs Germans
2) bearings you have not agreed yet as per http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =90#p79123
3) Busch's referred PG message to Bismarck
They full corroborate Ellis distance, just at 5:42 instead of at 5:52..... :lol:

Wadinga wrote: "The Suffolk-BC1 azimuth is not so different to Suffolk -Norfolk"
Bearings are very different: 135° to 185° ? Good for Britain that Mr.Wadinga is not a Gunnery Officer, he would have fired to his own ships......

Wadinga wrote: ""A mast" means he had no idea what he was looking at"
A "mast" simply means a ship (in Italian naval terms at least)....It would be funny if, on the exact 15° bearings of Suffolk (confirmed by SF as 195°, an exact match and being SF in sight as per SF observations already one hour before), there was another mast of a "fisherman" that Brinkmann signalled to Lutjens as being the enemy at 176 hm......
Desn't Mr.Wadinga feel ashamed to try such crazy theories ? :lol:



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

Post Reply