The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

it is ridiculous how ignorant some persons can be, ... they do not have a minimum idea of geometry and trigonometry, ... and pretend to move here and there the ships without considering that, ... like in this re-construction case, ... having many cross bearings among many units one connecting the other, ... it cannot be done, ... it is simply impossible.

We should be stopping pretending this effort from such an incompetent group of people, ... it is an useless waste of time.

Enough said, ...

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Sigh

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

just do the map you are suggesting and show us how ignorant and incompetent you can be.

So we can laugh a bit ...

Bye Antonio

[RF]

For such dumb insolence as per the last post produced by a supposed professional historian simply undermines his credibility and reduces any consideration of these issues to the level of a kindergarten playground.

Just grow up or shut up.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Hi RF,
"Such dumb insolence" was blatantly provoked by someone (Mr.Dunmunro) who, after mocking and insinuating, had no shame to say that to produce a good map you can take a set of agreed bearings between ships and then MOVE ships until you reach the distance good to fit the wishes of the "deniers".....

This was exactly the way Pinchin produced his false document (the "Plot"), to support Wake_Walker change of declaration, taking bearings and then enlarging distances ("coming from the bridge" as he wrote), with the result to be unable to respect these bearings.


I would suggest you to read fully the threads, BEFORE coming in to "teach" manners..... Mr.Dunmunro deserved much worse than this from Antonio for his hooligan way of behaving here.



Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

you can take a set of agreed bearings between ships and then move ships in order to reach the distance good to fit the wishes of the "deniers".....




Bye, Alberto

Who agreed upon these bearings? We've been arguing all along that bearings have an element of error and that bearings ending in zero or five are just approximations.

A/A thought no one would notice that his map, meant to hang W-W and Leach had the fatal flaw of placing Norfolk and Suffolk too close to one another.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "Who agreed upon these bearings? We've been arguing all along that bearings have an element of error and that bearings ending in zero or five are just approximations."

After having realized he said a nonsense, now Mr.Dunmunro comes back asking who agreed the bearings: Antonio, Marc (Herr Nilsson) and myself have already, if I remember correctly.

We are STILL waiting for Mr.Dunmunro agreement on the set of green bearings and only THEN we can discuss tolerances that will change nothing (if any tolerance has to be applied, as the cross-bearings taken from other ships will confirm them with a minimum error probability).
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =90#p79123

Waiting for a fair admission that these bearings are indisputable, or for a very "courageous" attempt to refute them.......


For the time being, the only battlemap produced respecting these bearings is Antonio's one, very annoying for "deniers" unable to produce any alternative one.


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "Who agreed upon these bearings? We've been arguing all along that bearings have an element of error and that bearings ending in zero or five are just approximations."

After having realized he said a nonsense, now Mr.Dunmunro comes back asking who agreed the bearings: Antonio, Marc (Herr Nilsson) and myself have already, if I remember correctly.

We are waiting for Mr.Dunmunro agreement on the set of green bearings and only THEN we can discuss tolerances that will change nothing (if any tolerance has to be applied, as the cross-bearings taken from other ships will confirm them with a minimum error probability).

Waiting for a fair admission that these bearings are indisputable, or for a very "courageous" attempt to refute them.......
For the time being, the only battlemap produced respecting these bearings is Antonio's one.


Bye, Alberto

We've discussed at length that all bearings had an element of error and Bill Jurens also addressed this issue in his recent post. The very idea that the bearings recorded are indisputable is absolute nonsense. If they were indisputable then the Hood BofI would not have admitted Pinchen's map into evidence without batting an eye.

The fact is that A/A got himself into a jam and now tries to ignore the fact that Norfolk and Suffolk were too close to one another in his map when he should just admit that he made a mistake and correct his work by placing W-W's cruisers at a plausible distance. Of course this means abandoning his conspiracy theory as the whole premise unravels when this mistake is rectified.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Mr.Dunmunro is desperately trying to avoid that the green bearings are the ones we can take to start the reconstruction of a battlemap (and discussing later the possible tolerances to be applied).....
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =90#p79123

He prefers to live in his "fog of war" with no reliable bearing (even if confirmed by germans at the very single degree) and thus no reliable distance....

His choice, Antonio has a good enough battlemap, he has NOTHING alternative to propose (being unable to work on a his one), except his "disclaimers".......


Bye, Alberto

[HMSVF]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "Who agreed upon these bearings? We've been arguing all along that bearings have an element of error and that bearings ending in zero or five are just approximations."

After having realized he said a nonsense, now Mr.Dunmunro comes back asking who agreed the bearings: Antonio, Marc (Herr Nilsson) and myself have already, if I remember correctly.

We are waiting for Mr.Dunmunro agreement on the set of green bearings and only THEN we can discuss tolerances that will change nothing (if any tolerance has to be applied, as the cross-bearings taken from other ships will confirm them with a minimum error probability).

Waiting for a fair admission that these bearings are indisputable, or for a very "courageous" attempt to refute them.......
For the time being, the only battlemap produced respecting these bearings is Antonio's one.


Bye, Alberto

We've discussed at length that all bearings had an element of error and Bill Jurens also addressed this issue in his recent post. The very idea that the bearings recorded are indisputable is absolute nonsense. If they were indisputable then the Hood BofI would not have admitted Pinchen's map into evidence without batting an eye.

The fact is that A/A got himself into a jam and now tries to ignore the fact that Norfolk and Suffolk were too close to one another in his map when he should just admit that he made a mistake and correct his work by placing W-W's cruisers at a plausible distance. Of course this means abandoning his conspiracy theory as the whole premise unravels when this mistake is rectified.

Mr Dunmunro,

The problem for those who propose the cover up thesis is that the maps/plots/charts make up a significant part of the foundations. Hence the voracious defence. Mr Jurens has explained in some detail the obvious flaws in any proposed map and the substantial room for error.

With a certain degree of irony the reply is "construct your own map" which goes to show that either -

i) They didn't understand what Mr Jurens was saying (absolutely no chance of that)
ii) They disagree with Mr Jurens entry, but cannot dispute it


So the riposte make your own map is a nonsense. You cannot make a plot of forensic quality with sketchy information of 75 years ago as pointed out by Mr Jurens . So all this talk of "fact" is ridiculous ... It's an interpretation, one which has been challenged. Yet the same riposte is given "make your own and challenge it" despite the fact it's a pointless exercise.


The whole premise now seems to be a war of attrition and reminds me of the following ...

(account from Rear Admiral Reginald Hall)

'Once I remember,I was sent for by Mr Churchill very late at night.He wished to discuss some point or other with me - at once. To be candid I have not the slightest recollection what it was; I only know that his views and mine were diametrically opposed. We argued at some length. I knew I was right, but r Churchill was determined to bring e round to his point of view and he continued his argument in the most brilliant fashion. It was long after midnight and I was dreadfully tired, but nothing seemed to tire the First lord. He continued to talk and I distinctly recall the odd feeling that, although it would be wholly against my will, I should in a very short while be agreeing with everything he said. But a bit of me still rebelled and recalling the incident of the broken shard in Kiplings Kim, I began to mutter to myself: "My name is Hall, my name is Hall...."


Suddenly, he broke off to look frowningly at me. "Whats that your muttering to yourself?" he demanded.

"Im saying " I told him "that my name is Hall because if I listen to you much longer I shall be convinced its Brown".




Best Wishes



HMSVF

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

bla, bla, bla, bla, … look at how many useless statements are made by ignorant and incompetent persons just because they are unable to draw, … to realize, ... and mostly to understand how some available data can easily translate into a battle map taking into account the due tolerances just to explain the battle area and her main events and distances.
Of course assuming you are able to made a battle map.

So if I read the above comments :

Mr Jurens has explained in some detail the obvious flaws in any proposed map and the substantial room for error.

Good, the above statement seems clear to me.

Now Mr. Genius, … can you tell me who draw this map ? Using what ? For what purpose ?

Jurens_Glorious_action_Plot.jpg

(127.65 KiB) Not downloaded yet

Which data did he use ? Are you able to read the statements or do you need me to explain what has been done to you ?

The problem with the sheep, ... is that they do not use much of their brain, ... and blindly trust the sheperd, ... hoping that he is right.

Try another one, ... or learn how to read and understand what a properly made battle map can tell you.

Bye Antonio

[HMSVF]

Hello everybody,

bla, bla, bla, bla, … look at how many useless statements are made by ignorant and incompetent persons just because they are unable to draw, … to realize, ... and mostly to understand how some available data can easily translate into a battle map taking into account the due tolerances just to explain the battle area and her main events and distances.
Of course assuming you are able to made a battle map.

So if I read the above comments :

Mr Jurens has explained in some detail the obvious flaws in any proposed map and the substantial room for error.

Good, the above statement seems clear to me.

Now Mr. Genius, … can you tell me who draw this map ? Using what ? For what purpose ?

Jurens_Glorious_action_Plot.jpg

Which data did he use ? Are you able to read the statements or do you need me to explain what has been done to you ?

The problem with the sheep, ... is that they do not use much of their brain, ... and blindly trust the sheperd, ... hoping that he is right.

Try another one, ... or learn how to read and understand what a properly made battle map can tell you.

Bye Antonio

Oh look another Ad Hominem !!!


Great way to reinforce your argument




Why don't you ask Mr Jurens yourself?

Perhaps the big difference is that he wasn't trying to push a cover up theory when he produced his map. Perhaps he produced it as diagrammatical illustration of the battle and nothing else. Perhaps it was merely an indicator of events rather a CSI style forensic examination!


He visits the board why not ask him directly ? He seems a very courteous, polite and reasoned person.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

you have used his statement, ... and you have been kicked in the back, ... and clearly and easily demonstrated being wrong.

I am sure next time you wil lbe more careful, .... before exposing yourself so superficially.

Meanwhile take a chance to try to learn from somebody evidently knowing more than you do, ... of course including Bill Jurens that just as you should have realized, ... knew well about doing what I have done, ... having done that battle map before me and for the same reasons.

Do your homework after having learned and hopefully you will be able to understand what you are unsuccesfully trying to challenge with no competence, ... maybe after having understood you will not challenge it anymore, ... knowing that it is correct.

Bye Antonio

[HMSVF]

Hello everybody,

you have used his statement, ... and you have been kicked in the back, ... and clearly and easily demonstrated being wrong.

Mildly amusing and delusional

I a sure next time you wil lbe more careful, .... before exposing yourself so superficially.

Say what? Exposing myself !?

Meanwhile take a chance to try to learn from somebody evidenty knowing more than you do, ... of course including Bill Jurens that just as you should have realized, ... knew well about doing what I have done, ... having done that battle map before me and for the same reasons.

LOL - Im always willing to learn. I read from a wide range of sources and have an inquisitive mind, What I am not is a "sock puppet" who blindly follow an self professed "expert" who will not take no quarter from those who disagrees or asks difficult questions. I will take my "education" from the likes of Mr Jurens, Mr Raven, Mr Freidmann, Mr Burt,Mr Roberts et al if its all the same.

Do your homework after having learned and hopefully you will be able to understand what you are unsuccesfully trying to challenge with no competence, ... maybe after having understood you will not challenge it anymore, ... knowing that it is correct

.

"Look into my eyes, not around the eyes but into the eyes - You will do my bidding mere mortal the cover up is real ,the cover up is real!!!

Nope. Hypnotism doesn't work either.



In regards to Mr Jurens map. Given what he explained at great length in his very informative post, he was using approximations, he also with that map didn't have to worry about the Royal Navy view as all 3 ships were at the bottom of the sea along with their charts (If POW,NF and SF had been also sunk it would have so much easier!) . Even allowing for in built error I'd imagine it was easier to reconcile the 2 german ships movements and plot than trying to reconcile them with those of say Acasta and Ardent + the twins( if the 2 destroyers had survived) to make one big uber chart. Im not presumptuous enough to speak on behalf of recognised expert of naval matters its the height of rudeness especially has he seems such polite,reasoned,interesting and informative person.


Im sure the guard dog will be along soon...

[Bill Jurens]

Regarding the chart of the Glorious action:

This particular map was produced during the regular course of my duties as an editor for Warship International. Vernon Howland, the author of the piece, had done a good deal of research into this particular incident and supplied me with copies of the various surviving track charts, which needed to be assembled into a coherent, reasonably legible, one-page treatment. So that's what I did. (The job was made easier because at that time I had been involved in resolving a variety of inconsistent descriptions regarding the location of Manitoba property monuments left over from the 19th Century. These involved residual errors which in some cases amounted to distances of a couple of meters. This sort of discrepancy represents, of course, an insignificant sort of error in a nautical track chart, but is a fairly big deal on land, especially when property lines are involved.) After the drawing had been inspected and approved by the author of the article, it was published in the magazine.

In the case of the Glorious incident, the track charts were reasonably clear and consistent, so that the assembly process was relatively straightforward. I'm gratified that people find it useful and even interesting.

As described in some detail in my 1987 paper on the loss of Hood, this was not the case for the Denmark Strait action. The track charts for Hood and Bismarck were, of course, gone. The track chart for Prinz Eugen was difficult to read and in places difficult to interpret. The track chart for Prince of Wales had been damaged during the action and had to be partially reconstructed from memory. The track charts of the accompanying British cruisers were either lost or non-existent, and in any case, due to their distances from the main action would have only have been of marginal interest in any case. The gunnery plan of Prince of Wales, which had survived, contained a number of clerical errors and inconsistencies rendering it incapable of fully-reliable reconstruction.

This rendered, an in my opinion still renders, any attempt at a highly detailed and reliable track chart of the Denmark Strait action, especially at this remove highly problematical. Within some reasonable constraints, the remaining data might allow one to construct eithe a highly-detailed but not necessarily reliable plot, or a reliable but not necessarily highly detailed plot, but not both simultaneously. The information that remains, in general, simply does not support anything further than a fairly generalized reconstruction. In a few isolated cases inconsistencies can be eliminated (or have by coincidence combined so as to cancel one another out) giving the impression that some clarity and certainty can be obtained, but the rest -- as seen through the somewhat out-of-focus telescope of history -- remains, and shall probably always remain, somewhat blurry and indistinct.

This is, unfortunately, true of the vast majority of track charts produced during the first half of the twentieth century. Irreconcilable inconsistencies represent more the rule than the exception. It is only now, with the discovery and mapping of the wrecks of the ships at Jutland, that we are able to resolve some disagreements in the track charts of that action. But the Denmark Strait action -- and the others involved in the "Bismarck Chase" -- leave nothing of that sort behind. At Denmark Strait, the 'fog of war' has not, and probably will never, fully dissipate.

I hope this helps to clarify at least the issues revolving around the Glorious chart.

Bill Jurens