The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:01 pm

Hello Antonio,

Why do you assume this?
they had the PoW-Rowell precise tracks too.
The Pinchin plan is dated 12th August. The questioning of the witnesses started 12th August. Why would they have access to information from another ship? The Pinchin plan is clearly a fairly sketchy effort thrown together for this enquiry only.

Leach submitted his report with fair copies of the PoW plans to the Admiralty. Why would that information be sent to the Board of Inquiry as needed to find out why Hood blew up?

If you want to wrangle why Pitcairn-Jones didn't marry the two tracks of PoW and Norfolk together using the straightforward log entry as I have done- I have no idea. It's the obvious thing to do. I have already told you the Historical Branch were pestering destroyer officers for missing bits of information in late 1941 early 1942, but the staff appreciation doesn't really bother with Norfolk and Suffolk.

As for knowing Bismarck steered a straight course:
and they knew the enemy ran a straight course 220° from 05:38 until 06:03
How? With an inclinometer from up to 15 miles away? As you already noted Suffolk did not report accurately Lutjens' Crazy Ivan so how would anyone know Bismarck didn't change course? Even the Gefechtskizze doesn't show Bismarck's course. :cool:

All the best

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

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

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Cag » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:11 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio, no need to wait for me see my previous post as regards the 7 bearings.

Im still going through others that may help.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
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 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:23 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

Sean, ... Rowell map of Hood exploding was submitted with " The Plot" at the same time and inquiry, ... it was enough to use that information.

If you notice on " The Plot " the German tracks is showed 2 times, ... estimated and traced, .. both are showing a straight 220° course, ... so they presumed that already with a good estimation.

Anyway, ... it is not so important for this discussion.

Regarding Pitcairn-Jones, ... well, ... will will cover him and what he did later on, ... :wink:

@ CAG,

OK, ... and thanks.

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: 1297
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:59 pm

Hello Antonio,

Where is Norfolk on these maps?

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/pofw_maps.htm
the German tracks is showed 2 times, ... estimated and traced,
Traced? Traced from what? Norfolk can trace his own track from the ARL table plot and a separate one for Suffolk. But he has no map for Bismarck :D All British representations of Bismarck's track are estimates. PoW thought her course was 212T.
and what he did later on
Uh Uh Uh :negative: no prejudging Pinchin and Pitcairn-Jones here.

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
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 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:21 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

very good, I see you are fully engaged on this discussion now.

The PoW/Hood correct tracks could have been taken from the Rowell map, ... the second map showed on your link above.
It does not take a genius to merge it into " The Plot ", ... in fact even 75 years later it took me 1 minute to do it.

You are repeating what I wrote, ... the German ships estimated track was there, ... and was precise enough to refer to and complete the battlefield as I did now.

Anyway, ... now it is done and agreed and we have it right, ... finally.

It is Official that Pitcairn-Jones worked on the maps for the Battle Summary Number 5 correct reconstruction for the historical section of the Royal Navy Admiralty, the latest version in fact was updated by him.
Even Sir L. Kennedy refers to him on his book ,... so no surprises here, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:19 pm

I'll contribute as I can.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:33 am

Hello Antonio,

There is no evidence Pinchin had access to these maps- especially number 2. It is dated 20th August a week after Pinchin created his.

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
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 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:42 am

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

thanks, I consider you just like CAG in agreement with us all and now we are ready to start a better analysis of an agreed overall drafted map, were we can try now to improve something as a team.

@ Wadinga,

the dates may not be in prefect synch for few days, ... but what I wanted to say is that if anyone had the real intention to draft a better map like we are doing now here in summer 1941, ... the majority of the data were already available.

Point is that it was not of an interests of anybody at that time.
As far as I know the only one working on the maps years after was ... the now becoming famous ... Pitcairn-Jones.

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: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Cag » Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:16 pm

Hi All

Might I ask if producing a slightly revised Bismarck and Prinz Eugen track is relevant?

This may aid bearings taken to and from them?

Herr Nilsson has pointed out that according to the PG log both ships turned hard port at 05.21 which may not be too problematic and the Prinz Eugen log also shows that after the torpedo avoidance turns and cease fire at 06.20 the course of 220° was only resumed at 06.25 which does not seem to match her track plot. I must admit I have a small copy of the track and the last (the log entry of the final turn is at 06.14) drawn turn extends into a long curve and the times are very faint. But at the apex of the turn away is a dotted line referencing the splashes seen noted at 06.21? The log also shows that course was altered again at 06.28 with another hard port turn until 07.28 when 220° is resumed?

There are recorded bearings of the German ships at 06.29 from both Norfolk and Suffolk that may help tie in earlier ones plus we have the 05.37, 05.43 and 05.44 Hood and PoW bearing signals.

Obviously it is just a suggestion it may not matter a great deal but we have to make sure each track is as close in scale and movement as possible. I am using Antonios Bismarck and Prinz Eugen track as it's the most accurate we have. The PG log entries and the track map made by the Germans later seem in some areas a little at odds.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
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 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:56 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

the German ship track main reference I have used to realize my German ship tracks on my map is the Prinz Eugen official battle map track, ... and you can find it here in :

http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... tlemap.htm

Obviously I have a much better copy from the Bundesarchiv from where everybody can obtain a photographic copy, ... pretty expansive but a lot more clear and also in colors.

The Bismarck run track I added on top of the Prinz Eugen one was based mainly on reports, photographic and film evidence.

One of the most critical area to be analyzed in deeper details is the one before the now famous " S " turn executed by the 2 German ships between 05:21 when Prinz Eugen leading the formation started this " S " manoeuvre and 05:37 when probably Bismarck closed the " S " manoeuvre by going back on course 220° from the previous taken 170° course, ... because it was made of a course change from 220° -> to 170° -> back on 220°.

Herr Nillson had some good inputs being given in the past about this manoeuvre and the way it was executed, ... keel line, one time, etc etc ... we need now to link it better with the previous 2 known relative positions at 04:47 and 04:56 when we had two valid checkpoints from Suffolk, ... and finally at 05:20 in order to merge those tracks with the now validated 05:41 positions for everybody.

As said this is one of the two most critical area to be analyzed now, ... the other one is about Norfolk track between 05:35 and 06:10, ... which is not a perfect match as we can all see by looking the Pinchin track as it was originally, ... and needs to be adjusted mainly using the known data and bearing especially the one at 05:50 of 220° to Hood ( Norfolk war diary ) that is a mismatch if we keep the 230° to Hood at 06:00 ( WW report ), ... so obviously we need to use both the Norfolk Strategical map original inputs as well as the Norfolk gunnery data at open ( 05:53 ) and cease ( 06:09 ) fire as main new reference inputs for the Norfolk track modification and adjustment, ... those inputs are the most official we can use on this time frame between 05:35 and 06:10 for the Norfolk track adjustment, ... and by doing so we need to fix the 220° at 06:00 to Hood as well.

After, as a third main are of focus, ... having fixed the first two map areas above, ... we will look at PoW following Norfolk after 06:20.

Any comment or suggestion just feel free, ... being a teamwork approach I am open to any input to be evaluated.

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: 1297
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:58 pm

Hello Antonio,
Any comment or suggestion just feel free,
After, as a third main are of focus, ... having fixed the first two map areas above, ... we will look at PoW following Norfolk after 06:20.
Why?

You spend several paragraphs explaining why several other bearings need to be adjusted/modified and then decide to leave the clearest and most unambiguous to the end. A bearing taken not at a distance of tens of miles but at 1.5!

I am disturbed that instead of moving the Pinchin track in its entirety in order to achieve "Best Match" with the bearings, you are proposing to "adjust" bits of it.
looking the Pinchin track as it was originally, ... and needs to be adjusted mainly using the known data and bearing especially the one at 05:50 of 220° to Hood ( Norfolk war diary ) that is a mismatch if we keep the 230° to Hood at 06:00 ( WW report ),
Why is the bearing of 230T superior and worth keeping compared with 220T? Despite your previous insistence W-W knew all about BC1's identity, this log entry 220T is the first identification and bearing of massive reinforcements taken under low stress conditions. Precision is highly likely. 230T on the other hand is taken during a violent firefight the British are losing, and is based on sighting on some part of Hood's exploded remains seen through a pall of smoke. It occurs either immediately before or during a violent high speed turn to port by Norfolk. Equals low precision.

As we have discussed already, not all bearings are equal.



All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3318
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 Oct 18, 2017 7:06 am

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

as I wrote and agreed with Herr Nilsson, first we needed to agree about a group of well known bearings to define the battlefield and that is what we did correctly positioning the warships at certain defined points in time, ... and after looking at the overall result look at what does not make sense and modify it according to an agreed team approach.

Norfolk position in relation to PoW well after the engagement ended is not the first priority for sure, but a track adjustment at the end.

If I follow your approach none of the previous Norfolk bearing will be a match, ... so it is useless, ... and only confirms that Pinchin track as depicted originally on " The Plot " was adjusted to the need to show what it shows, ... for Norfolk as well as for Suffolk, ... exactly like it was done for the Hood, ... and the enemy too.

Consequently it is a much wiser approach to use it in order to position as best was we can as I did both Suffolk and Norfolk, ... and after just make the very minimum adjustment to the track that everybody will agree are needed to make it better and more precise according to other official and reliable data we have.

In my personal opinion the map just as it is showed above is a lot better of anything else provided in the past, ... by far.

I had to choose at first if respect the 220°at 05:50 versus the 230° at 06:00 to Hood in order to position the Norfolk track, ... and I choose the second option only because it is allowing the easy respect of 276° at 05:41 and also the 335° at 06:20 we have too, ... and the other 2 bearings we have at open fire between Norfolk and the enemy vs Pg and BS which are not in the list but they exist, ... while choosing the 220° at 05:50 it was not possible using the Norfolk track the way it was depicted originally.

This is the reason why I choose the 230° at 06:00 to be respected at first because it will enable us with some easy to apply modifications to respect every other data we have.

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: 2241
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 Oct 18, 2017 9:54 am

Hi Antonio,
I'm following with much interest your new attempt to reconstruct the battlemap starting from the proposed 7 bearings, as well as the discussion on this other thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8222&start=315, thanks to all the members who have contributed with very interesting data) regarding the relatively limited reliability of D/F bearings compared with more precise RDF or visual bearings.

Am I right saying that all the proposed 7 bearings are visual ones (possibly RDF for n.7 ?), thus quite reliable ones without much tolerance to be taken into account (including the n.6, the apparently contradicting 220° at 5:50 and 230° at 6:00 from Norfolk to BC1) ?


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: 1297
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:15 pm

Hello Alberto,

As far as bearing number 7 is involved I would have thought you would have been the most clear that it is not a radar bearing since it has no range. After all, for PG, if there is a range, even to a misidentified object, it must be a radar measurement. :D

As to why the Norfolk bearing to sinking Hood is likely to be less reliable- see above :cool:

The choice of 06:00 230T over 05:50 220T is transparently just to push Norfolk further west so as to support a failed thesis based solely on now thoroughly discredited bearings embodied in the DoD. This creates a bust on the far more reliable relationship between Norfolk and PoW's tracks at 06:36 demonstrated in the map above. It makes little or no difference to the 05:41 276T as this is E-W anyway. Besides 276T to what?
The Bismarck run track I added on top of the Prinz Eugen one was based mainly on reports, photographic and film evidence.
Pinchin's (who was there) track is from 1941, and although traced is to be judged not reliable, whereas Bismarck's track is created in the 2000s on interpretation of photographs, positioned relative to a map itself described as "useless".

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2241
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 Oct 18, 2017 1:24 pm

Wadinga wrote: "The choice of 06:00 230T over 05:50 220T is transparently just to push Norfolk further west so as to support a failed thesis based solely on now thoroughly discredited bearings embodied in the DoD"
Hi Sean,
you have not read my comment posted to Antonio on October 15, before your one: I'm with you in giving prevalence to 220° instead of 230° (possibly not for the same reasons.... :wink: )
I wrote: ".....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...... "
I'm just wondering now whether we can possibly respect both...... BTW, 220° instead of 230°, will push Norfolk to West, closer to Bismarck, not away as you seem to think...... :negative:


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

Post Reply