The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3695
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 Jul 30, 2018 8:00 pm

Hello everybody,

an incompetent ( intentionally incompetent in this case, which is even worst ) " hooligan/denier " wrote above :
Norfolk had no idea where Suffolk was, except for "somewhere on the starboard beam", right up until 05:41.
WW_Norfolk_to_Suffolk_bearings.jpeg
WW_Norfolk_to_Suffolk_bearings.jpeg (38.25 KiB) Viewed 1056 times

Evidently RearAdm Wake-Walker had a very different opinion than the above pseudo expert.

Like in the case of Adm Tovey and Adm Pound letters, ... it is enough to read what was written, ... use a minimum reasoning and avoid to write intentional incorrect statements.

On the above map there is only ONE radio D/F bearing, ... only ONE out of 7, ... ALL the other 6 are visual and by simply moving the Norfolk track made by Pinchin as it is, also the only ONE radio D/F bearing taken goes obviously on his correct position, as it must be, because it was correctly taken.

Only who intentionally does not want to admit the reality can keep on inventing all type of excuses not to do it, ... just as we are realizing since months now.

This is the " constructive cooperation " someone else is telling me I refuse to accept, ... and it started years ago, ... in this way.

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: 3626
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 Jul 30, 2018 8:26 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Mon Jul 30, 2018 8:00 pm
Hello everybody,

an incompetent ( intentionally incompetent in this case, which is even worst ) " hooligan/denier " wrote above :
Norfolk had no idea where Suffolk was, except for "somewhere on the starboard beam", right up until 05:41.
WW_Norfolk_to_Suffolk_bearings.jpeg


Evidently RearAdm Wake-Walker had a very different opinion than the above pseudo expert.

Like in the case of Adm Tovey and Adm Pound letters, ... it is enough to read what was written, ... use a minimum reasoning and avoid to write intentional incorrect statements.

On the above map there is only ONE radio D/F bearing, ... only ONE out of 7, ... ALL the other 6 are visual and by simply moving the Norfolk track made by Pinchin as it is, also the only ONE radio D/F bearing taken goes obviously on his correct position, as it must be, because it was correctly taken.

Only who intentionally does not want to admit the reality can keep on inventing all type of excuses not to do it, ... just as we are realizing since months now.

This is the " constructive cooperation " someone else is telling me I refuse to accept, ... and it started years ago, ... in this way.

Bye Antonio

We've discussed, at length, the limitations of D/F in determining position and it's accuracy in determining bearing. You've quoted W-W out of context to make it seem that he knew more than he did.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1604
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:43 am

Hello all,


I believe the phrase is truncated,

"of the utmost value throughout, because the positions they were sending me were no damn use at all!"

Come on, if you can say Busch saw Suffolk at 17,600m I can make up words for W-W.

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3695
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 Jul 31, 2018 7:00 am

Hello everybody,

when one does not want to accept the truth, ... the reality we can easily see on that map, ... is able to try to invent any type of excuses as we can realize here and read above.

We have the Norfolk ( and Suffolk ) original tracks, in scale with course and speed.

It is enough to correctly position them in relation to the enemy ( Bismarck and Prinz Eugen ) and to Hood and Prince of Wales.

The geographical position of the Hood and Prince of Wales was well known by Commander Warrand and confirmed by David Mearns with the Hood wreck finding.

Consequently, it i just enough to reproduce everything in scale and just use the bearings to properly position all the warships ( 6 of them ) tracks on a scaled map.

It is not a difficult concept to be understood, ... even and ignorant and incompetent about maps should be able to realize it.

When one has 6 visual bearings the cruiser track goes in the correct place easily, ... and if the last bearing was radio D/F and it goes on his perfect position just by using the 6 visual taken ones, ... what type of tolerance factor one is looking for ?

More, when one realize that the RearAdm was keeping his station toward the other ship since some hours by keeping her at 320° and traced that on his strategical map, ... and that radio D/F bearing is just 320°, ... what type of tolerance one is looking for ?

Should be not so difficult to realize that 320° was the bearing that Wake-Walker was referencing in order to follow the Suffolk and the enemy, ... keeping the correct station, ... and he was checking it with the radio D/F bearing at every radio transmission by the Suffolk.

That radio D/F bearing is confirmed both by the 6 visual ones as well as by the Norfolk strategical plot.

Easy and irrefutable ... even if we do not know the radio operator name and his shoe number.

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 )

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin » Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:21 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:00 am

... and if the last bearing was radio D/F and it goes on his perfect position just by using the 6 visual taken ones, ... what type of tolerance factor one is looking for ? ......


A perfect example of why people worry about your methodology - you do not think about what you are doing and make assumptions (and SEEMINGLY selectively misquote).

IF you (as you claim) were at sea for 18 months (????) (roughly the time that most of the officers and men of the POW had been in a major war) you would automatically know the problems of accuracy of various types of fixes - any amateur sailor knows these.

.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3695
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 Jul 31, 2018 11:44 am

Hello everybody,

anyone having a minimum logic should be able to understand that one thing is to position two ( or 6 like in this case, that makes it a lot easier due to their many crossing bearings ) warship tracks one in relation to the other knowing their course and speed, ... and a very different thing is to position them perfectly from a geographical stand point ( precise longitude and latitude ).

The uncertainty or tolerances of the second step does not have anything to do with the precision and the tolerances of the first step.

Apparently it is too difficult to be understood here by many, ... or it is intentionally not realized just to have the possibility to mix them together, ... and writing that it is not possible to do anything different and a lot better compared to what we have since 77 years, ... and I doubt this is the only real goal for those " deniers ".

The proposed map here in with the 7 Norfolk bearings positioning her track versus the other 5 warship tracks, ... is just the step number 1, ... in fact the map does not have anything on the side for longitude and latitude.
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg (66.51 KiB) Viewed 993 times
Still too difficult for you to be understood ???

Do you still have so many problems about the base geometry and trigonometry ?

It does not need to have been at sea 2 years or 25 years, ... it just needs a base elementary knowledge.

Lets see ... :think:

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: 1604
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:29 pm

Hello Antonio,

We have the Norfolk ( and Suffolk ) original tracks, in scale with course and speed.

but you are no longer using them, instead you have superimposed your own invented blue track over Norfolk's. You have supressed several important turns by her, "traced" by Pinchin from her plotter track, and particularly slewed the track between 06:20 and 06:36 so as to superficially respect PoW astern of Norfolk whilst achieving your goal of putting Norfolk close to the enemy earlier on.

If you had used Pinchin's track and put Norfolk ahead of PoW at 06:36 you would still have good angle correlation but your thesis of cowardice would be gone. Norfolk would be, as described by witness "fine on Hood's quarter" at 06:00,the view unobscured by PoW.

As for Suffolk there is only one direct bearing between Norfolk and her, and the sloppy linkage of the intermediate bearings from the two cruisers on Bismarck taken at different times depend on the track of the Germans being correct. The only source for the latter part of which is the Gefechtskizze which is described as "useless".
More, when one realize that the RearAdm was keeping his station toward the other ship since some hours by keeping her at 320°
Where are the recorded D/F bearings to support this? There are none. Norfolk, like Suffolk was steaming on roughly the same reported course as Bismarck and both at close to top speed. Consequently the bearing would change little. Except when of course , Suffolk circled at 03:25 and keeping station on her by hourly-ish D/F would have been completely thrown out. The few D/F bearings you have seen on the PoW original traced plan show the inherent variation, like plus and minus 2 degrees.

PoW recorded no D/F bearings from Suffolk after 03:36 and drew guessed D/R tracks from the reported positions earlier, resulting in the spurious positions for the cruisers used in Plan 4 in her report and reproduced in the post war battle summary. These D/R tracks ignore the circles and s turns made by the two cruisers and the "Crazy Ivan" made by Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. This D/R assumption placing the cruisers too close to PoW, misled you into decrying Pinchin's adequate effort, and into manufacturing your own distorted map and Conspiracy Theory and to the groundless defamation of all the officers involved.


All the best

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

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by northcape » Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:52 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:44 am
Hello everybody,

anyone having a minimum logic should be able to understand that one thing is to position two ( or 6 like in this case, that makes it a lot easier due to their many crossing bearings ) warship tracks one in relation to the other knowing their course and speed, ... and a very different thing is to position them perfectly from a geographical stand point ( precise longitude and latitude ).

The uncertainty or tolerances of the second step does not have anything to do with the precision and the tolerances of the first step.

Bye Antonio
Completely wrong.

I try to explain again but I'm afraid you will still not understand:

There are observations (e.g. bearings, distances) and calculated positions (either relative or absolute, e.g. Longitude/Latitude). The positions are calculated from the observations.

The observations have errors (uncertainties, systematic errors). The errors are projected onto the calculated positions (relative and absolute). If you neglect systematic errors in the observations, you can estimate standard deviations for observation uncertainties and apply the law of error propagation to calculate standard deviations for the positions (relative and absolute). These standard deviations are an estimate for the uncertainty of the locations. If you additionally have systematic errors in the observations, then your position accuracy estimation will be way too positive. As a consequence, the calculated ship tracks need to be broad corridors (+/- standard deviations) and not lines if you seriously want to use them for interpretation.

You need to understand that there is a bit more to consider than "simple trigonometry", if you deal with sparse and uncertain data.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3695
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 Jul 31, 2018 6:24 pm

Hello everybody,

OK, it is now clear to me that the above " deniers " would never agree about a simple geometrical exercise demonstrating the reality using the original Pinchin plot tracks ( where he intentionally enlarged the battle field ref. " The Plot " thread ) for Norfolk and Suffolk and the correct German and BC1 warship ones.

Every type of excuse is used not to agree what the map shows and try to remain into the uncertainty which is for them a lot better than admit the reality.

As far as I am concerned my effort about this " cooperation " stops here now.

@ Alberto Virtuani and Herr Nillson,

I am sorry, ... it is a useless waste of time as you can see.

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 )

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by northcape » Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:55 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:24 pm


Every type of excuse is used not to agree what the map shows and try to remain into the uncertainty which is for them a lot better than admit the reality.
Yes, that is the expected reaction of a conspiracy theorist: to call science (which they don't understand) an excuse.

I give a simple example: You have on object and two observers (one in north direction, one in east direction) with a distance of 30 km to the object (both). Both measure bearings and lets assume their measured distance (30 km) is exact. The uncertainty in the bearing is +/- 2 degrees. Then the position of a dot enlarges to a 2x2 km wide area (the position relative to the observers)

However, this is the most optimistic estimate for the most simple case. You still need to consider uncertainties of the estimated distance (you cannot resolve a trinagle without a known side=length, basic of trigonometry), the relative position of the observers to each other (e.g. bearings only with observers and objects inline cannot be solved for object position, and any situation close to this will have degraded position accuracy), sytematic errors (transcript errors, wrong readings, inaccurate/wrong times, different times at different ship (DS was before GPS)), and of course the very inaccurately known position of teh observers themselves. Even if you have a very accurate bearing, since your own position is poorly defined relative to the other observers, the estimated position of the object (reative to the observers) will be very poorly constrained as well.

Once you factor all this into the creation of your map, the lines and dots will turn to wide corridors and large overlapping circles. This is the reality.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3695
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 Jul 31, 2018 9:19 pm

Hello everybody,

the reality is just that you do not like to agree that the bearings ( mostly visual ) that we have at hand and are ALL available to be read on official documents, ... when translated into a map show exactly what I showed in the above map.

You can play with your useless tolerance excuse and live happily with " The Plot " made by Pinchin to save Wake-Walker, ... believing that it is something close to the reality ... that you can read on Sir Kennedy novel.

It is just like believing that I am the first one discovering the BofI/CM threat for those 2 Officers, ... disregarding Adm Pound and Adm Tovey official letters, ... and Stephen Roskill books.

One can believe on everything he likes ... :wink:

Enough said ... 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: 3626
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 31, 2018 10:03 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:19 pm
Hello everybody,

the reality is just that you do not like to agree that the bearings ( mostly visual ) that we have at hand and are ALL available to be read on official documents, ... when translated into a map show exactly what I showed in the above map.

You can play with your useless tolerance excuse and live happily with " The Plot " made by Pinchin to save Wake-Walker, ... believing that it is something close to the reality ... that you can read on Sir Kennedy novel.

It is just like believing that I am the first one discovering the BofI/CM threat for those 2 Officers, ... disregarding Adm Pound and Adm Tovey official letters, ... and Stephen Roskill books.

One can believe on everything he likes ... :wink:

Enough said ... Bye Antonio
Rather, it's that you cannot accept variation because it destroys your theory.

There was no CM threat.

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by northcape » Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:50 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:19 pm


the reality is just that you do not like to agree that the bearings ( mostly visual ) that we have at hand and are ALL available to be read on official documents, ... when translated into a map show exactly what I showed in the above map
This is confusing again. When you draw a map, the drawn map looks exactly like the drawn map? That how it should be, yes.

I think this is called tautology, e.g. the house is green because the house is green. Just another common conspiracy technique to confuse and hope to make the own argument stronger.

Once more, of course you can draw the bearings in a map and it will show something, but this is not reality. It is just one educated guess among thousands others, due to the reasons I have explained before.

One can believe on everything he likes ...
Yes, of course, finally you reach the correct conclusion about your map and theory!

As for Pinchin, WW, court martial, etc., I could not care less. I have little interest in this, I just cannot help to response when I see obvious nonsense and stupidity stated again and again.
Enough said ...
I hope we can take your soldiers word on this!

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3695
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 Aug 01, 2018 9:43 am

Hello everybody,

I cannot believe what I am reading :
Once more, of course you can draw the bearings in a map and it will show something, but this is not reality.
:shock: :shock: :shock:

So, if we follow the above reasoning approach, ... Pinchin was creating nothing for Wake-Walker, ... and the Hood Second board accepting " The Plot " being the reality supporting his change of distance declaration, ... were a group of incompetent Navy Officers accepting something that in line of principle could not show the reality.
Why Wake-Walker asked Pinchin to make it at all ? Why he started his " new declaration " to the Hood Second board by stating :
3. Will you please tell us what the range and inclination was ?

I have the track charts with me; the range was about 30,000 yards.
According to the above " competent " person the track chart used by Wake-Walker cannot show the reality ... :wink:

Unbelievable ... just unbelievable ...

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 )

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by northcape » Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:48 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:43 am

According to the above " competent " person the track chart used by Wake-Walker cannot show the reality ... :wink:

Unbelievable ... just unbelievable ...

Bye Antonio
Well, of course it is not reality! Like your map, it is one out of many, many, possible solutions. You still confuse "data" and "measurements" with "reality". It is hard to believe that people lack that very basic understanding! Any map based on sparse data is just one possible solution with a certain degree of accuracy. That is why it is crucial to estimate or at least think about the uncertainties in the reconstruction of a map, if you use this very limited set of data like you have !

Nowadays, we have GPS which's track is very close to reality (depending on your receiver technology, tens of meters to centimeters). In 1941, ship navigation was based on occasional astronimical fixes, and interpolation based on estimated course changes and speeds inbetween. So your actual estimation of the position at a given point in time can have an uncertainty of several miles or more (in absolute terms, but also in relative terms depending on the quality and frequency of your course / speed readings). So again, you need either very good absolute locations of the observers at the same time to use their bearings to locate a third object, or accurate absolute bearings between all observers and the object at the same time.

Additionally, I wonder how accurate the visual bearings are and how they are measured. I guess it will not be magnetic bearings (no calibration possible due to the steel of the ship?), but bearings relative to the ship course, and thus dependant on the ship course? In this case, the accuracy should not be better than a couple of degrees, at best. But I don't know this, and maybe somebody with more knowledge can elucidate on this.

Post Reply