The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2976
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:58 am

Hello everybody,

as requested by Wadinga, I moved here on a dedicated thread this argument still belonging to " The Denmark Strait Saga " and clearly demonstrating one piece of it.

@ Wadinga & Dunmunro,

It appears that you, like many others do agree we need to look for the truth.

Lets work on something productive, like the battlefield and the map just using, ... as you and Wadinga correctly suggested me years ago, ... the bearings and not the distances, ... due to the sure minor error margin possibilities I fully agree with you.

Here we were and hope still are all in agreement.

I have agreed with Herr Nillson about this productive initiative to move forward as a team, I am sure you read about

Do you mind to confirm from your side the bearings showed in this map being correctly traced connecting the 2 tracks of Norfolk and Suffolk as originally traced by Pinchin on The Plot, and now just related to the BC1 and German ships correct tracks on my map here below.

The question is : Are they correctly traced according to you ? If not which one and why ?

To make your geometrical bearings verification easier, even if you can of course control them all, I ask you and Wadinga and everybody who wants to cooperate here, a confirmation of just few ( 7 ) of them :

1) 335° between Norfolk and Suffolk at 06:20 ( Ref. The Plot and WW Off. report )
2) 185° between Suffolk and PoW at 05:53 open fire ( Ref. Suffolk Off. report )
3) 276° between Norfolk and enemy at 05:41 ( Ref. Norfolk war diary )
4) 334° between PoW and enemy ( Ref. PoW int. message to Admiralty )
5) 207° between Suffolk and Bismarck at 06:00 ( Ref. Suffolk Off. report )
6) 230° between Norfolk and Hood at 06:00 ( Ref. WW Off. report ) - NOTE: we have a conflict here with 220° at 05:50 ( to be defined jointly after )
7) 28° between Prinz Eugen and Suffolk at 05:50 ( Ref. PG Off. battle map )

Plot_redone_bearing_01.jpeg
Plot_redone_bearing_01.jpeg (85.66 KiB) Viewed 374 times


I repeat myself, the Norfolk to Hood conflict 220° at 05:50 versus 230° at 06:00 will be resolved jointly later.

You can verify also the other bearings on the map, but I do not need you to agree about them, ... if you want you can do it, ... but it is not required at this stage of the verification.

Again, ... 7 easy bearings verification, ... and a response, ... that is all we need from you, Wadinga and everybody else that wants to really cooperate on finding the truth about this battle.

1) yes or no
2) yes or no
3) yes or no
4) yes or no
5) yes or no
6) yes or no
7) yes or no

You can copy and paste the above bearings list and fill it according to you.

Thanks for your fairness and cooperation in advance, ... 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 )

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:00 am

Hi all,

@Antonio:
I don't see how anyone can debate this set of bearings as being a proved one, with the exception of point 6.
I know you have asked to discuss it later, but between a bearing written in W-W official report (written later and full of errors/contradictions, intentional or not, like the "6:13" PoW retreat after "10 minutes engagement" :shock: ....) and a bearing logged on board the ship at 5:50, I would keep the latter one......
Also, I don't see any difference between the bearing at point 1 and the dotted line d6 (or dc) and d7 bearings traced by Pinchin: the first is a line, the latters are dotted lines (possibly because they are RDF bearings and not optical sighting ?.....). The 3 of them are bearings taken from NF to SF and intentionally NOT respected by Pinchin original plot (while respected on your map).


I see everybody here is willing to discuss memory failures, journalistic scoops, invented "saga", etc. but I clearly register that both the "ones who refuse to accept any evidences" (new definition thanks to a really boring political correctness) and the wise, unbiased (in their mind only...) people (the ones reading these threads and ready to point out any possible verbal intemperance), ARE NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT ANY starting point for discussing in a scientific way a reliable map, well knowing that any effort in this direction will get, at the end, to your battlemap......just because the 6 ships were all there and could not fly ! :oops:

Unfortunately, I don't think you will get any of them to concur, because their objective is just to deny what really happened on May 24, still sticking themselves to Tovey/Kennedy's fairy tale version. I hope I'm wrong.....


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: 454
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby Cag » Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:32 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto this is a discussion regarding a map, bearings, and placement of ships not a cover up theory discussion.

If, as Antonio suggested, we are doing this without argument and in a certain spirit why is there already negative posts, or attempts at point scoring being made?

If we are serious about this, and it is not another seemingly innocent subject that becomes hijacked into another way to argue continually without resolution about a cover up theory, let us all do it without a pre conceived agenda or resort to obvious silly games or reference to other subjects that are irrelevant to this subject.

If not I think you'll find those who do wish to understand the facts will not bother to contribute or depart quickly.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:51 pm

Hi Mr.Cag,
QED. Possibly I miss your position on bearings in your above post..... :negative:

Please, avoid such polemics AND try to be a bit more constructive. I have given my position and concurrence (justifying it), you have given... NOTHING....

Your list of yes/no, PLEASE !


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: 454
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby Cag » Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:38 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto, I'm not going to start a back and forward silliness.

Please refrain from posting irrelevant subject matter.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:47 pm

Hi Mr.Cag,
please refrain to post polemics INSTEAD of answering Antonio's question. :negative:


Bye, Alberto

P.S: is in your opinion a word like "silliness" respectful ?
"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: 2976
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:21 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

I wrote above :

... this argument still belonging to " The Denmark Strait Saga " and clearly demonstrating one piece of it.


I am sure you understood and confirmed :

... this is a discussion regarding a map, bearings, and placement of ships, ...


You got it right. Here in I would like to have ONLY a pure geometrical discussions about a map and the bearings showed on it, ... nothing else, ... any evaluation about it will NOT be done here in this thread, ... but obviously it will be done after as comparison.

As Alberto anticipated to you I do not see how anybody can refute to accept those official inputs and what the mapping geometry is demonstrating to everybody.

Refusing to accept it will only finally and irrefutably confirm the real attitude of the ones that pretend us to believe they are looking for the truth about this battle, while in reality their are working with an hidden agenda and strategy in another direction and for another goal and objective.

This is the reason why I have made this thread, to force them out and show their attitude on something that does not have any personal opinion about anything, but only fairness about a geometrical law recognition like geometry is.

Lets see who and when they will show up and in which way.

So far I have myself, Herr Nillson and Alberto Virtuani agreement, ... nobody else.

So, if you agree on the 7 bearing inputs written above being all official inputs and correctly showed on the map, you only have to write a positive confirmation and in case your personal comments about it and the map.

@ Alberto,

thanks for your confirmation and input about the bearing Nr. 6, that as I wrote above will be analyzed and resolved on a second phase of this work, ... just like the 05:20 of the Suffolk and something else too, ... not on this phase were I mandatory need and want to use just the original tracks traced by Pinchin and highlight how they should have been traced at first, respecting already well known available data on August 1941.

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: 454
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby Cag » Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:52 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio, thank you, that was my point, we must begin as we mean to carry on without bringing in other subject matter or inciting reaction by attempted point scoring. I appreciate your help with this.

I'm working through the bearings and your sources (most make sense so far!) and trying to help on those you point out we may have trouble with, and trying to add more from other references if I can prove beyond doubt to myself that they are accurate. I don't want to muddy the waters with irrelevant bearings.

Ive been talking to a very very nice veteran who served for a long time in signals radar and d/f who has given me the d/f info of each ship and how it exactly works and what the +/- errors were.

Once I can explain it simply (correlating the mass of Admiralty operating manuals and fitment lists is taking time sorry!) hopefully I can help with that too and explain the time difference between the Suffolk signal and the Norfolk plotting of them.

Thanks again for the support, if we stick to relevant information we may return to the happy state of everyone being in agreement.

Best wishes
Cag.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3076
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:20 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

I wrote above :

... this argument still belonging to " The Denmark Strait Saga " and clearly demonstrating one piece of it.


I am sure you understood and confirmed :

... this is a discussion regarding a map, bearings, and placement of ships, ...


You got it right. Here in I would like to have ONLY a pure geometrical discussions about a map and the bearings showed on it, ... nothing else, ... any evaluation about it will NOT be done here in this thread, ... but obviously it will be done after as comparison.

As Alberto anticipated to you I do not see how anybody can refute to accept those official inputs and what the mapping geometry is demonstrating to everybody.

Refusing to accept it will only finally and irrefutably confirm the real attitude of the ones that pretend us to believe they are looking for the truth about this battle, while in reality their are working with an hidden agenda and strategy in another direction and for another goal and objective.

This is the reason why I have made this thread, to force them out and show their attitude on something that does not have any personal opinion about anything, but only fairness about a geometrical law recognition like geometry is.

Lets see who and when they will show up and in which way.

So far I have myself, Herr Nillson and Alberto Virtuani agreement, ... nobody else.

So, if you agree on the 7 bearing inputs written above being all official inputs and correctly showed on the map, you only have to write a positive confirmation and in case your personal comments about it and the map.

@ Alberto,

thanks for your confirmation and input about the bearing Nr. 6, that as I wrote above will be analyzed and resolved on a second phase of this work, ... just like the 05:20 of the Suffolk and something else too, ... not on this phase were I mandatory need and want to use just the original tracks traced by Pinchin and highlight how they should have been traced at first, respecting already well known available data on August 1941.

Bye Antonio :D


As has been pointed out in the past, the bearings taken are, in most cases approximate when taken with RDF and/or unstabilized sights, and because of errors in timing between when the bearing was taken, what it was taken on, and when it was entered in the log.

I am very interested in what CAG's current research turns up.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2976
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:49 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG and Dunmunro,

although it is interesting from an academic stand point to know which error margin an R.D/F bearing or a visual bearing or any other taken bearing may have, this thread is not at all related to this study.

We do have 7 bearings and those are the ones we have to play with simply because those have been Officially recorded and communicated to us thru available official documents on both sides.

So, please while you do all the study you like to make on this direction, do you mind to recognize those 7 bearings being correct, ... thru your confirmation on the official documents I have listed aside them, ... and after confirm back to me that they are correctly traced on my provided map above.

This is all I need, a confirmation of them being correct and correctly traced on the map, ... nothing else.

Thanks in advance for your fairness and help.

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: 3076
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby dunmunro » Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:08 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ CAG and Dunmunro,

although it is interesting from an academic stand point to know which error margin an R.D/F bearing or a visual bearing or any other taken bearing may have, this thread is not at all related to this study.

We do have 7 bearings and those are the ones we have to play with simply because those have been Officially recorded and communicated to us thru available official documents on both sides.

So, please while you do all the study you like to make on this direction, do you mind to recognize those 7 bearings being correct, ... thru your confirmation on the official documents I have listed aside them, ... and after confirm back to me that they are correctly traced on my provided map above.

This is all I need, a confirmation of them being correct and correctly traced on the map, ... nothing else.

Thanks in advance for your fairness and help.

Bye Antonio :D


Why not mark the bearings as a fan (centreline bearing with another line on the left and another on the right showing the likely +/- error limits)?

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2976
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:22 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

all those trials and exercises can be done after the base agreement when we will move forward.

With Herr Nillson I agreed to start from a common agreed base and that is in my opinion the best base to start, even using the Pinchin tracks for Norfolk and Suffolk so they should not raise any concern at first agreement from anybody.

The above list of cross bearings and the related map should be fairly easy and immediate to agree among us all and I really do not see how anybody with a minimum knowledge about this battle data can refute to agree on the above 7 cross bearings and the battlefield they define being so well known and official on known documents.

That will define the battlefield and after we can start doing common agreed exercises in any direction we would like to, ... I have no problems about it having done it on my last 14 years about this battle on hundreds of maps on many different versions.

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: 454
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby Cag » Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:49 am

Hi All

As I posted earlier in a different thread we must be cautious with some British bearings as they seem to be mid bearings and so not taken on individual ships.

Antonio your bearings, my thoughts and hopefully conformation of your sources,

1) 335° is reported in WW report at a time of 06.20.
2) 185° is reported in Ellis report at 05.53.
3) 276° is reported in log but signalled as 280°, 276 is more accurate but I think 280 must be kept in mind.
4) Leach report states enemy mentioning both ships, ie possible mid bearing, as 335° and PoW signal states large ship 334°.
5) Not sure on this as far as 207° is concerned as Churchill archive copy of Ellis/Suffolk report says 06.00 enemy (a mid bearing possibly) 208°, at 06.15 it is 210° but importantly it is given as Bismarck 206° Prinz Eugen 208° at 06.29.
6) WW report says 05.59 Hood exploded bearing 230°. At 0559 she was heading toward Bismarck (see plot). Her ships log gives a bearing of 220° to BC1 at 0550 whilst running parallel to Bismarck, she began her turn toward Bismarck around 05.53 according to the plot track and was midway through the turn at 05.55.
7) On the PG map when one extends the dotted line it joins the track about 05.50.30 so I'd say you're right and a bearing of 28° from PG. Suffolk had just finished executing her turn so I think we could work out from her mid bearings if at this point her position would match up.

Interestingly at 05.20 Ellis/Suffolk report gives a mid bearing of 203° just before the German ships both turn to 170° at 05.21, I think Herr Nilsson mentioned this point.

If it is ok there are other bearings that may be useful from Norfolk, PoW, Hood, and Prinz Eugen that I'm going through that may help confirm others.

The d/f is of interest but I realise that you are not using them in this matter, I will post what I have found but did mean that it would be on the appropriate thread, possibly the plot.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 901
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby wadinga » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:40 pm

Hello All,

I concur fully with Cag's observations including the additional bearings he mentions and agree Antonio's seven.

I will review my revised version of the A & A map and see how these points are reflected.

I am however concerned by Antonio's observation:

highlight how they should have been traced at first, respecting already well known available data on August 1941.


As has been pointed out a bearing from a fire control system would be of first order accuracy, that from a pair of look-out binoculars referenced to a gyro repeater somewhat lower and lowest a bearing to ship's head which then has to be arithmetically converted to a True North bearing. Apart from the former none would be recorded automatically and all might be subject hand logging delay.

The Plot by Pinchin was created, apparently during the duration of the very short second Hood Technical Enquiry solely for the purpose of establishing how far away the witnesses were. Since some of them were in PoW only hundreds of yards away there was no need for Hood's track to be positioned relative to them and since the cruiser's witnesses were likely to be at least 10 miles away (at least) there was no reason to locate and use PoW's action plot since the detail they could see would be inferior to that from PoW..

Also this statement above seems to drift somewhat from the "fresh start" approach. This thread is surely not supposed to be establishing incompetence or malfeasance in 1941. They used what they had for the purpose required. Now we do have the PoW action plot and PG's map as well so we have more than anybody had in 1941.

There were observations on the shortcomings of 1941 D/F in the reports at the National Archive, I will describe elsewhere.

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2976
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:57 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

you wrote :

... and agree Antonio's seven.


Thanks for having agreed about the 7 bearings provided above defining the battlefield.

Now I wait for Dunmunro and CAG agreements as well, ... and of course the agreement of anybody else in this forum willing to participate to this team work exercise.

You can loose time looking at our article map, surely was not precise like the above one.

Just for the record : You have to accept the fact that PInchin had available the correct Norfolk bearings and Suffolk too, and they knew the enemy ran a straight course 220° from 05:38 until 06:03 when they turned to starboard, they had the PoW-Rowell precise tracks too. They only missed the Prinz Eugen 28° from her battle map, which is only an additional confirmation of Suffolk position at 05:50. Everything else could have been used and a similar work been done if they wanted to on August 1941.

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 2 guests