The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1629
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 23, 2017 5:26 pm

Hello All,
As you can see we are having very minimum modifications to the original track by Pinchin
Errrmmmm............................. :shock:

I will need...........just a little while to think about this. :wink:

Herr Nilsson, I think Norfolk's CPA on Hood's sinking site was just over 3 miles at about 06:25.


All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3734
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 23, 2017 8:37 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

take it easy, ... no need to hurry up, ... it took me some years and dozen of maps to realize it, ... we can wait few days for you to digest it.

By the way, ... for the Suffolk it will be a lot easier, ... just a small correction on the top of the track, ... :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 )

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:13 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you wrote :
That means Norfolk was was very close to Hood's sinking position between 06:30 and 06:40 ?
You are rising an interesting point that brings me back to my initial analysis and information researches.

Hood exact sinking position, the exact 2 times radio communicated positions of Hood sinking place, and different between them, using the Norfolk navigating officer inputs in relation to Norfolk geographical position and her debris field drifting on the ocean have been very carefully analyzed by David Mearns on his book at pages 110 to 116 for the messages and from pages 186 to 188 with the scheme of it at page 187.

It does not have to surprise much that the Norfolk Navigating Officer Ltnt Cdr Tod plotted her so close to the presumed Norfolk gegraphical position on his strategical, ... that was in error of 7 sea miles to the southwest compared to where Norfolk really was on that moment, ... so on Norfolk they assumed being more on the Northeast compared to where they really were.

Just my personal opinion based on what we can realize about it, ... and I fully agree with David Mearns analysis about it.

Anyway, ... I only took Ltnt Cdr Tod track of Norfolk and his traced course and course changes, ... and once correctly positioned we can realize now how far away to south of the Hood wreck position Norfolk sailed, ... trying to realize her position only based on her Hood drifting debris.

To close this doubt we have PoW input at 06:34 telling us where Norfolk was in relation to PoW as underlined several times to me by Wadinga, ... and respected on this new track ... and this should close any concern about it being PoW track the correct reproduction of where she left Hood sinking and where she met the Norfolk at 06:34, ... one and a half mile ahead of her now on course 250° with PoW following the Norfolk, ... if I recall correctly.

The Norfolk visual taken bearing toward the enemy at 06:36 and the Norfolk war diary entry at 06:40 mentioning PoW having joined her ... should be more than enough to close definitively any doubt.

Bye Antonio :D
I still don't understand it.
Norfolk's signal at 06:29 was:
... My position 63° 22' N., 31° 46' W. ....
and then C.S.1. at 06:37:
... Hood sunk in 063° 21' N., 031° 47 W. ....
That means Norfolk was just 1' or about 1 nm away from the sinking position and therefore Wake-Walker could improve the searching position for the destroyers.
Mearns says current and wind drift was about 9 nm in direction about SW respectively S in 15 hours. The drift after about 30 minutes would have been almost insignificant.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3734
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 24, 2017 9:12 am

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

on Norfolk they were a lot confused too about their and Hood geographical positions ... but anyway I have never read that Tedd Briggs, Bob Tilburn or William Dundas ever reported Norfolk sailing so close to them ...

David Mearns on his secret personal map just plotted Norfolk on my same way above, ... :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 )

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:56 am

Antonio,

it's not about the accuracy of Hood's geographical position in absolute terms. It's simply about Norfolk giving a position of herself and the sinking position of Hood within a few minutes which are almost identical.

At least Briggs was "sprawled out" on his raft, that means, he could see nothing at all.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

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 24, 2017 5:31 pm

Hi All

Sorry for my absence, unfortunately after working very long days recently, now things are normalizing I'm a bit under the weather, which I apologise for in advance if contributions are only now and again (Wadinga it's at times like this I look forward to my retirement, and happy retirement by the way, but dependant on the powers that be for me it may be 20+ years away yet!).

Just a couple of questions, one is I thought we had agreed that the Norfolk strategical map was too small a scale to use as an accurate track, is it ok if I still use the plot tracks?

That way I have both Suffolk and Norfolk tracks taken from the same document. I understand that it may help if at a known point in time we can use it to correlate an estimated course for Norfolk but I'm not sure it's that accurate?

Also Antonio on your map i see one of thr d/f bearings given a green line, I thought that the d/f bearings were not being used?

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1629
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 24, 2017 6:53 pm

Hello Cag,

Sorry you are a little under the weather, I'm feeling a bit "woozy" myself.

Am I really seeing that after several years of "proof" that Pinchin's map was a gross distortion created specifically to back up a series of lies, perjuries and a monstrous RN cover-up, by shrinking the battlefield by 30%, it does in fact line up with the various logged bearings including those made by the Germans, and is therefore a reasonable representation?

Therefore the distances represented are likely to be similar to those I derived by adjusting Antonio's & Alberto's map:
The distance from Norfolk to PoW at 05:41 is 32,500 yds or 16.3 miles bearing 208T degrees.
The distance from Norfolk to Bismarck at 05:41 is 31,000 yds or 15.5 miles bearing 280T. (“At 05:41 Norfolk sighted the enemy at 16 miles. Wake-Walker’s report. “05:41 Enemy in sight 276T” Norfolk’s ship’s log)
The distance from Norfolk to PoW at 05:50 is 27,100 yds or 13.5 miles on 221 degrees (“Hood and PoW in sight 220T 14 miles.” Norfolk’s Ship’s log)
The distance from Norfolk to Bismarck at 05:50 is 30,000yds or 15 miles on 280.3T degrees
The distance from Norfolk to Bismarck at 06:00 is 28,300 yds or 14.1 miles on 274.5 degrees. This is the minimum range since both Bismarck and Norfolk turn away from each other. (This conforms with range estimates from Norfolk’s DCT.)
The distance from Norfolk to Hood at 06:00 is 24,300 yds or 12.1 miles on 237T. (“At 05:59 Hood blew up. She was bearing 230T 15 miles from Norfolk.” Wake-Walker’s report)

The distance from PoW to Bismarck at 05:37 is 37,300 yds or 18.7 miles on 336T. “Enemy in sight 17 miles [34,000 yds] on 334T” PoW sighting report)

Suffolk’s track has been moved along her mean line of advance so that she bears 335T from Norfolk at 06:20 when her gun flashes were seen. There may need to be adjustment orthogonal to this.
The distance from Norfolk to Suffolk at 06:20 is 37,200 yds or 18.6 miles on 328.5T
The distance from Suffolk to Bismarck at 05:42 is 23,800 yds or 11.9 miles on 200T (before the circle).
The distance from Suffolk to Hood at 05:53 is 50,400 yds or 25.2 miles on 185T. (0553 (B). Heavy gun flashes bearing 185°. Half a minute later Bismarck opened fire to port.)
The distance from Suffolk to Bismarck at 06:00 is 35,800 yds or 17.9 miles on 209T (“0600 (B). Enemy bore 208°.” Suffolk Narrative)
Hello Cag

Notwithstanding this revelation, you are quite correct. Substituting the giant arcs on the strategical map for the traced track from the ARL plotter is poor practice. As a GIS website says:
Small scale data inherently is less accurate and less detailed than large scale data.  Using small scale data for large scale analysis can lead to gross errors.  Data created for small scale purposes should not be used in large scale maps.  Large scale data unless generalized, should not be used in small scale maps.


All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2810
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:53 pm

Wadinga wrote: "Am I really seeing that after several years of "proof" that Pinchin's map was a gross distortion created specifically to back up a series of lies, perjuries and a monstrous RN cover-up, by shrinking the battlefield by 30%, it does in fact line up with the various logged bearings including those made by the Germans and is therefore a reasonable representation? "
Hi Sean,
I hope you are joking.....
Have you at least realized that this last Antonio's map is NOT the Pinchin's Plot and that the battlefield resulting form it is even SMALLER than the one represented in the map Antonio had previously built and we have published in the "Storia Militare" article ? E.g. in this map the distance from Suffolk to BS at 05:41 is here 9 / 9.5 sm (in our map it was 11.5 sm), and Norfolk to Bismarck at 06:00 is 12 sm (vs.12.5 sm in our cautionary published map) ? :shock:

Only the "graphical form" of this map is similar to Pinchin's Plot......please, take the time to check the bearings and to measure the relevant distances.....
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg (66.83 KiB) Viewed 1866 times
Please take your time to "digest" this map (as Antonio already suggested you) and finally recognize that, by now, there is not a single possibility for the "ones who refuse to accept every evidence" to move Norfolk and Suffolk away from the enemy, as Pinchin attempted to do with his "Plot".


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:19 pm, edited 9 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3734
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 24, 2017 7:54 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

probably you have failed to realize that I am just using Pinchin original tracks and bearings for Suffolk and Norfolk and surely NOT his traced distances on " The Plot " toward enemy and BC1.

Those distances have been given to him from the bridge as he himself wrote on that map, and those are surely incorrect as reported just as my map above is clearly demonstrating you by just putting back the VISUAL bearings were they belong.

@ CAG,

the strategical map is all we have since somebody took the freedom to hide the tactical plots forever for Norfolk and Suffolk, so we have to rely on that to check and correct in case of need the Pinchin original tracks on " The Plot" , using the showed courses and course changes and for this job his precise enough.

As you can see and verify, once the VISUAL bearings are ALL correctly positioned, ... the R.D/F ones are perfect as well, ... thus confirming that they were correct as well.

@ Herr Nillson,

talking about somebody releasing very precise and reliable declarations and never changing them after, ... here what the Flag Officer of the Norfolk was communicating to his Admiralty about his ship position and the Hood sinking position.

At 05:41 my position, HMS Norfolk, his 63° 39' N and 31° 10' W ( point A ), while in reality he was 10 sea miles to SW on bearing 245° from the communicated position ( Point C )

At 06:29 my position, still Norfolk of course, is 63° 22' N and 31° 46' W ( point B ) and again he was 10 sea miles to SW on bearing 245° from that communicated position ( point D ).

So the error was consistent with the one before and confirms my re-construction above being correct, he sailed exactly the track I have traced in BLUE not so different from the Pinchin original track. The only difference is that he thought to go from point A to point B, while he was going from point C to point D, with the same track and distances sailed anyhow.

Now we move to his masterpieces, the 3 different position of Hood sinking place.

1) at 06:15 he communicated : Hood sunk on position 63°20' N and 31° 50' W.
2) at 06:37 he communicated : Hood sunk on position 63°21' N and 31° 47' W.
3) On "The Plot" Pinchin put Hood sinking position at : 63°23' N and 31° 55' W with Norfolk sailing at 2,5 sea miles from Hood sinking place at 06:30 and 2 sea miles south of her at 06:40.

Now, try to see with me what was possible from what was NOT possible.

If at 06:00 Norfolk was having Hood exploding on bearing 230° T from her position, and she changed course from 250°T to 215° T on that moment, surely she was NOT going to sail close to Hood sinking position, this is for sure since she was diverging from that position.
To go there she must have sailed a course 230°T, while she sailed on course 215° T as we can see on the Strategical plot by Tod.

This diverging angle caused the distance from Hood sinking position we can measure at 06:20 at 06:30 and after at 06:40 when Norfolk was on course 250°T from 06:36 more or less.

How come they thought Hood was on the position they communicated at 06:15 and 06:37 is very hard to imagine, ... surely " The Plot " at least showed that they sailed at least a couple of sea miles away from that place to the south east, ... like it happened in reality, ... even if they were a lot more distant just like David Mearns perfectly explained and re-constructed on his book.

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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3734
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 25, 2017 7:03 am

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

just to confirm what I have stated above and show it to you in a graphic form, here the error that Norfolk was making all the way thru progressively on her navigation geographical positioning showed at 02:29 and at 05:41 on this map.

No one, unless the fantastic Commander Warrand on board the HMS Hood, was error free on both sides, including the Germans, so this geographical positioning error does not have to surprise at all.

They communicated being at a certain point after the previous night at 11 fix, but they were somewhere to south west of that position as you can see on the map. The 2 RED dots showed on the map below are their communicated positions at 02:29 and at 05:41, while the YELLOW dots at same time are their real positions to south west of the assumed and communicated position that were consequently to the north east of their real positions on that moment.
SK_NK_PoW_at_0320_011.jpeg
SK_NK_PoW_at_0320_011.jpeg (76.51 KiB) Viewed 1842 times
Exactly the same correction factor apply to their 06:29 communicated position versus their real position and that is a perfect match with my above map and provides continuity and confirmation to the Norfolk track course changes and speed as depicted on her strategical map by Tod and very similarly on " The Plot "by Pinchin of course, ... and please remember that they were always assuming their incorrect geographical position reference while tracing their map references as obvious.

Now we can use their tracks and course alterations all the way thru, correct their positioning error and realize a more accurate map while correctly positioning them according to Commander Warrand perfect navigating positioning confirmed by the Hood wreck position on the bottom of the ocean discovered by David Mearns thanking Commander Warrand once again.

As demonstrated and agreed above now thanking to the VISUAL bearings and the availability of the correct BC1 and German warships track, we can realize a very accurate scenario of the battlefield dimensions and all the warships relative positioning one to the other all the way thru the battle, from the beginning ( even before 05:30 battle time ) until the end ( well after 06:30 battle time ).

Hope all is clear now ...

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 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:44 am

Hi All

Hi Antonio, i respect your opinion on the fate of the tactical maps but it is based on opinion not fact.

Could you help me in determining the problem with the Pinchin tracks. Are they incorrect?

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2810
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 25, 2017 9:33 am

Hi Mr.Cag,

let's agree that it is a fact (not an opinion) that the tactical plots of both cruisers are not available to us, despite at least the ones from Suffolk should have been (later) attached to Ellis report to W-W (that refers several times to them) and despite Ellis himself wrote on his report front page in pencil that "the tactical plots are in my possession"..... :think:
Another "innocent" coincidence ?


Re. the Pinchin's track of Norfolk vs. the strategical plot track, please consider that both are basically passing through the same points at 05:41, 06:00 and 06:20, therefore the change is minimal anyway.

However, 1) keeping Pinchin's one you should believe that Norfolk turned 20° to port in 14 minutes (1.5° per minute.... :shock: ) and I don't think any ship is steered this way (was the rudder possibly put 0.5° to port for 14 minutes ?). In addition, 2) the strategical track perfectly matches the available bearings, reconciling 220° to Hood at 05:50 and 230° at 06:00. This is why I would use the strategical track instead of Pinchin's input that have already been demonstrated very doubtful under many viewpoints (e.g. distances and bearings not respected).....


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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1279
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:58 am

Antonio,

I have no problem with the offset at all. The error doesn't affect the tracks.
So we have Pinchin's track on the "plot" and Tod's track (do we know it's from Tod for sure?) on the strategical map.
If you want to use the strategical map you should also accept that Norfolk almost crossed Hood's sinking position, which is confirmed by the signals made on May 24th.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

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 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:19 am

Hi All

Thanks Alberto, I'm afraid I'm not here to speculate on the whereabouts of tactical maps, or the opinion on their fate. Im not sure that is relevant to the discussion, if you believe they were 'hidden' I'm happy to accept you do but there is no proof. There is a very big difference between suggestion and fact.

We both know what Ellis wrote on the Churchill Archive copy, we dont know when it was written. It states that no strategical copy exists (yet we have one) and that the automatic plotting table tracks are in his possession not the tactical plots.

Comparing the scale of the strategical track and the plot track and that those points match then there would I assume be no problem and using the Pinchin tracks is acceptable?

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2810
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 25, 2017 11:17 am

Hi Mr.Cag,

of course I'm happy to accept your opinion that the absence of the Suffolk tactical plots (in addition to Norfolk ones) from the submitted report (despite they should have been "forwarded as soon as possible", while adding that the automatic plotting table tracks were guarded "in his possession") is just casual: I'll keep my "suggestion".
No copy exists of the strategical plot, but the original is, very luckily, still available to us.....

Coming to what matters here, you are right, the difference is minimal, and you are therefore free to use the Pinchin track, if you believe credible that a ship can be steered to perform a 20° turn in 14 minutes :shock: and if you don't care about the two conflicting bearings reported at 05:50 and 06:00 from Norfolk to Hood....


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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

Post Reply