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: 3644
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 11:59 am

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

the missing availability to us of the Suffolk and Norfolk tactical plots is a fact. Why we miss them is a personal opinion.

The differences between Pinchin Norfolk track on " The Plot " and Tod's track on the Norfolk strategical map are not that much, in fact you can verify that they are having common reference points one on top of the other at 05:41, at 06:00 and at 06:30, ... so the 2 tracks are basically showing a general similar trend as far as the track was going overall.

Main differences are the course that on Pinchin are from 05:41 a large arc until 05:55, followed by a course 270° until 06:00 and 220° plus 200° with another arc type course until 06:30.

On Tod's strategical map we have a 215° from 05:41 until 05.53 more or less, than 250° until 06:00 and after another 215° from 06:00 until 06:30.

As you can see on the graphic map above, one goes on top of the other at the beginning at 05:41, on the intermediate checkpoint at 06:00 and at the end at 06:30 were we have the 06:29 very close confirmation message too, ... once correctly re-positioned 10 sea miles to south west on true bearing 245°.

With the Pinchin original track re-positioned by me, ALL his partially traced visual bearings are respected except the one at 05:50 to Hood on 220°.
Using Tod's original track from the Norfolk strategical map ALL the visual bearings are FULLY respected.
On BOTH cases the bearing D/6 is perfectly respected as a direct consequence of the correct re-positioning of Norfolk and Suffolk tracks on the battlefield according to their real VISUAL bearings among ALL warships thru the battle. It is also showed as a confirmation at 05:41 on the Norfolk strategical plot by Tod with the bearing 320° at 05:41 between Norfolk and Suffolk.

@ Herr Nillson,

you are right, as I have explained above to CAG and as you correctly noticed, the differences between Pinchin and Tod tracks does NOT affect the Norfolk track in general.

I assign the ownership of the Norfolk strategical map to Ltnt Cdr Tod as a given and I will try to find his signature on the original map I have copied on Kew at the PRO.

Tod plotted Norfolk track passing close to Hood sinking place as communicated on radio messages too, ... but in reality they were making a considerable error on position both them and Hood, ... so it is NOT reliable at all, ... in fact Pinchin moved away from Norfolk on " The Plot " the Hood sinking place as you can verify easily.

I am trying to show with the correct map their real positions, as explained well by David Mearns too, ... and that is what is the result of it, ... the real distance between them.

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 2:24 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto yes it's nice we have a strategic map despite Ellis believing there was not a copy of it in existence, however the whereabouts or reasons why something may or may not be missing is not really in the remit of this discussion. I'm not sure about your point as regards the turn, and I thought the two reports were 05.50 and 05.59 according to logs and reports?

Hi Antonio, again as above, the tactical reports are mentioned in the Ellis report, along with the table plots, is it possible that the table plots were used to create both the strategical and any tactical maps?

Again I'm happy to accept your opinion that these things were hidden, but it is still an opinion not a fact.

It is a long process, we have 7 bearings and there are at least the same number outstanding bearings that are of a similar nature which remain to be looked at.

Best wishes
Cag.

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 3:07 pm

Hi All

By the way the pencilled notes on the Ellis report do actually have a signature and a date below them.

Best wishes
Cag

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2712
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 3:38 pm

Cag wrote: " I'm not sure about your point as regards the turn..."
Hi Mr.Cag,
my point is that Pinchin track shows a turn to port of 20° executed by Norfolk from 5:41 (at least) to 5:55. That is a turn of just 20° in....14 minutes with a turn rate of 1.5° per minute..... :shock:

Have you ever seen a ship turning this way ? What would have been the corresponding order given to the helmsman ? I have been on board a ship calibrating a radar against a shore station in 1988: she was ordered to turn very very slowly, almost imperceptibly, at quite low speed, but the 360° full turn took far less than 30 minutes (enough however to give me sea-sickness while in front of the radar screen.... :oops: ).
I simply don't believe that a ship like Norfolk could have been steered like shown in Pinchin's track while running at 28-30 knots..... :negative:

The "arc" traced by Pinchin looks like a "connecting curve" between points that he "needed" to be in connection while building his "Plot".


Bye, Alberto
"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: 3644
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 4:04 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

until the time we will hopefully find the tactical plots of Suffolk and Norfolk, what we can say are just personal opinions, ... and until we can analyze and compare them with their strategical maps, ... everything is possible.

The 6 visual bearings plus the consequent confirmed D/6 are more than enough to properly position the Norfolk track on the now determined battlefield area.

You can play with all the other additional bearings that can be analyzed too, ... but they will never be more reliable than those ones to change this scenario that much.

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 9:26 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto, I'm still not sure what you mean, are you saying it was not possible to do?

All the ships tracks including German tracks show sharp and gradual curves, I assume that a sharp or a gradual curve can be done by various ship commands?

Best wishes
Cag

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:44 am

Hello Cag,

I am sure an experienced marinator like Alberto is quite well aware, it is unusual but perfectly possible to end up with such a "banana-shaped" track. Whilst the helmsman, often situated down below in safety, is normally given an instruction like steer 220T, as he only has the gyro compass as a reference, he may also be given an order something like "nothing to starboard" or "let her head drop away to port".

With Bismarck in sight to starboard (at 13 miles, which is between 12-15, on the latest A & A map by my measurement) and yet PoW reporting herself a long way away on the port bow somewhere, which may something to do with the distant smoke, W-W drifts gently away to the southward for a few minutes, whilst maintaining sight on the enemy. Once BC1 is sighted, I measure 13 miles on the latest A & A, Norfolk closes to as little as 12 miles on the enemy by my measurement, before opening again to 14 miles, which is also between 12-15. Good, so the Baron and Tovey are correct.

Does Suffolk's 06.29 bearing line up with her observation? A good blind test. This latest A & A has Suffolk 15 miles away to the North West from Norfolk and her track is more speculative than Norfolk's as it is not tied to PoW's as Norfolk's is.

Suffolk's circle at 06:29 on her strategical is due west of Lutjens' Crazy Ivan - which is correct?

As far as I can see, Pinchin seems to have done a good job considering he did not have Bismarck's track. Of course neither have we, we have Antonio's photo evaluation and PG's strategical.

All the best

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

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:25 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote: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.
Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Tod plotted Norfolk track passing close to Hood sinking place as communicated on radio messages too, ... but in reality they were making a considerable error on position both them and Hood, ... so it is NOT reliable at all, ... in fact Pinchin moved away from Norfolk on " The Plot " the Hood sinking place as you can verify easily.
I'm not sure that I understand you correctly therefore I'll try to summarize your reasoning with my own words:

The strategical plot has a consistent offset of 10 nm to SW for Norfolk at 05:41 and 06:29. The position of 06:29 is wrong in absolute terms, but because the error is consistent between 05:41 and 06:29 the track is right (and both positions in relation to each other). Because the position at 06:29 is wrong, the sinking position at 06:37 is wrong as well.
Is it right that way?
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2712
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:44 am

Wadinga wrote (my bold): "With Bismarck in sight to starboard (at 13 miles)........Norfolk closes to as little as 12 miles on the enemy....Pinchin seems to have done a good job"
HI Sean,
I must thank you for your fairness :clap: , finally recognizing that what Antonio was saying regarding the Norfolk distances since years was 100% correct (after having accused him of building a weak reconstruction just to support the "cover-up" story). The battlefield is now clearly delimited, again congratulations for your gallant fight and honorable surrender. :clap:

I just disagree that Pinchin job was good :kaput: : his distances at same time as above are respectively 16,4 sm and 15,3 sm :shock: , quite a big difference, especially knowing that, just respecting the available bearings to Suffolk and correctly placing even his approximate German track, he could have restricted the battlefield to more or less the same extent as Antonio did. :negative:

As a consequence, also Suffolk distances are now fixed, because if SF was at around 15 sm from enemy after the turn to north at 05:41, she was at around 9.5 sm before the turn, fully confirming Ellis autobiography and F.O.Busch account.Would you also agree on SF distances by now ?



Coming to the other point you raised (also @Cag),
you wrote: "....nothing to starboard" or "let her head drop away to port....."
I disagree. No helmsman can "let drop" his ship for 14 minutes to tun just 20°that is basically "nothing", this is just not realistic because the rudder should have been kept precisely to e.g. 0.5° to port for such a long time.
In any case, the order you suggest would imply that W-W gave up any leadership initiative during these 14 vital minutes, just "letting his ship drop" to port.
I think the order was "25° to port" and even if it was required to be executed very very smoothly, such an order would take no more than 1-2 minutes. Anyway, in case you prefer to use Pinchin's track, be it, but it will be difficult for you to reconcile 220° and 230° visual bearings, as already discussed. The strategical track is not very precise but it's much more realistic than Pincin's perfect "arc" traced just to connect points.

Do you have any example of a prolonged turn rate of 1.5° per minute executed by any warship during a battle ? :negative:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:34 am

Do you have any example of a prolonged turn rate of 1.5° per minute executed by any warship during a battle ?
Maybe Rodney and Norfolk on May 27th?
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3644
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 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:17 am

hello everybody,

@ all,

it seems that we are having a general agreement about the Norfolk track now.

Pinchin versus Tod tracks is a minor difference and does not change the overall scenario, even if I believe more Tod than Pinchin large arcs.

@ Herr Nillson,

you are right with your understanding, ... Norfolk 06:29 position is right after the correction factor, ... what is wrong were the 2 radio communication positions of Hood from Norfolk at 06:15 and 06:37, ... but I do not know how it happened.
Pinchin correctly moved it away on " The Plot ".

They evaluated being closer to it, ... in reality they were and sailed more distant from it, ... and in fact there is no report from the 3 Hood survivors of having seen the Norfolk sailing so close to them after 20/25 minutes of being in the water.

In fact as I told you it is impossible for them to have sailed there so close to Hood with a 215° true course ( Tod ) or even a 220° followed by a 200° true ( Pinchin ), ... while Hood was at 230° true bearing from them at 06:00 according to Wake-Walker report.

I could provide you a detailed geographical graphic explanation of all I am saying, ... but that will cost me the disclosure of the Hood real geographical sinking position place, and respectful of what David Mearns asked, Frank Allen and Paul Bevand ( Hood webiste ) suggested too, ... I am not going to write it or show it in clear format on this moment.

@ all

Now lets move on the Suffolk track analysis ... :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: 1265
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:39 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote: @ Herr Nillson,

you are right with your understanding, ... Norfolk 06:29 position is right after the correction factor, ... what is wrong were the 2 radio communication positions of Hood from Norfolk at 06:15 and 06:37, ... but I do not know how it happened.
Pinchin correctly moved it away on " The Plot ".

They evaluated being closer to it, ... in reality they were and sailed more distant from it, ... and in fact there is no report from the 3 Hood survivors of having seen the Norfolk sailing so close to them after 20/25 minutes of being in the water.

In fact as I told you it is impossible for them to have sailed there so close to Hood with a 215° true course ( Tod ) or even a 220° followed by a 200° true ( Pinchin ), ... while Hood was at 230° true bearing from them at 06:00 according to Wake-Walker report.

I could provide you a detailed geographical graphic explanation of all I am saying, ... but that will cost me the disclosure of the Hood real geographical sinking position place, and respectful of what David Mearns asked, Frank Allen and Paul Bevand ( Hood webiste ) suggested too, ... I am not going to write it or show it in clear format on this moment.
Antonio,

I also know the real geographical sinking position by the way and I will not disclose it for the same reasons. However, the "true" sinking position is AFAIK the rough center of the 4 km long and 1 km wide debris field. So there is still an uncertainty today.

Now I have several things I don't understand and I think we can't move to Suffolk, while Norfolk isn't still done:

Pinchin's and Tod's tracks are different. I think all will agree.

You're saying:
"The differences between Pinchin Norfolk track on " The Plot " and Tod's track on the Norfolk strategical map are not that much, in fact you can verify that they are having common reference points one on top of the other at 05:41, at 06:00 and at 06:30, ... so the 2 tracks are basically showing a general similar trend as far as the track was going overall."
I tend to disagree. The shape of the tracks is totally different. That means IMHO one of them is wrong (or even both) or we don't understand the sources the right way.

Another point is that Norfolk made a signal at 06:29 containing her own position and a signal at 06:37 containing the improved sinking position. I could concur that the improved sinking position is still wrong in relation to Norfolk in case of still beeing several miles away. But here the 06:29 and 06:37 positions are almost identical. It makes no sense to guide the destroyers to the wrong position. In reality Norfolk must have been very close to it. If there is no report of the survivors, it doesn't mean that it wasn't that way.

You say it's impossible that the course of Tod and Pinchin wouldn't have bring them near this position. In case of Pinchin I would agree, because I haven't any better explanation so far, but in case of Tod the 215° course is your assumption. Just look at the strategical map. Norfolk didn't sail 215° and the sinking position is exactly 230°.
Tod.jpg
Tod.jpg (20.19 KiB) Viewed 1810 times
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga » Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:56 pm

Hello Alberto,
congratulations for your gallant fight and honorable surrender
I am reminded of the words of a famous Russian Scottish-born Admiral in a battle off Flamborough Head * :cool

As far as I can remember at one point Antonio was claiming Suffolk and Norfolk were ten miles apart and Bismarck was somewhere between them. Now both Tovey and the Baron are vindicated on the latest variant of the A & A, at 12 miles. Who knows how it will evolve in the future. Since Pinchin had no access to Bismarck's track, had only one bearing from Norfolk to Suffolk and it is extremely unlikely he had access to PoW's track at the Inquiry, his work was fit for purpose in determining roughly where the witnesses were.

We must remind ourselves that whereas Norfolk's traced track shows the speed losses made during sharp turns, the recreated (guessed from photos) track for Bismarck misses such elementary features of ship hydrodynamics.

Even Antonio admits his position for Suffolk is less than perfect:
Now lets move on the Suffolk track analysis
Because when you compare the 06:29 circle on her Strategical it is due west of the Bismarck Crazy Ivan, showing her track's location- relative to the only thing she could see, the enemy, is grossly misplaced on your latest effort. You have quoted the radar and visual bearings from it when it suits you and ignore them when they do not.
W-W gave up any leadership initiative during these 14 vital minutes, just "letting his ship drop" to port.
Admirals express wishes, they don't tell the helmsman where to go. My scenario makes perfect sense. You want him to charge at the enemy at 05:50, according to your latest iteration, ignoring the traced track, he does.
this is just not realistic because the rudder should have been kept precisely to e.g. 0.5° to port for such a long time.


You did serve at sea didn't you? Did you ever go down to the dirty, greasy steering flat and watch the rudder head? On my survey vessel I frequently did. We were required to steer along predetermined lines on the seabed to an accuracy of less than 10 metres either way. You do realise that attempting to steer a course in the dynamic environment between two fluids where windage on the vessel causes it to crab, waves and swells hitting the bow causes it to be thrown off downweather, and the delay and hysteresis between gyrocompass and rudder setting means that the latter is constantly changing and is never at a fixed angle? The helmsman is constantly shifting the rudder to cancel wind and wave effects, and almost always overcompensates because those effects are not predictable and differ whenever he changes his heading.

* No not Sean Connery- John Paul Jones "I have not yet begun to fight" :dance:

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2712
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:24 pm

Hi Sean,
I was thinking you were always saying that it was impossible that Norfolk could be at 12 sm from Bismarck at 06:00 and that Pinchin's distances were much more reliable than ours......
Possibly I'm wrong. :think:

The important thing is that you have admitted by now that Norfolk was at around 12 sm from Bismarck at 06:00 (as it had been already exactly demonstrated long time ago by your "favorite" DoD, while you had never accepted it) and that we can now discuss W-W behavior based on the real distances of his ship from the enemy, not based on Tovey misleading justifying statement (around 15sm) or based on the Pinchin's "Plot" (15.4 sm at 06:00).
If this is not a surrender.......call it as you prefer......possibly just "temporarily breaking off the action"...... :wink:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:35 pm, edited 6 times in total.
"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: 3644
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 » Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:40 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

of course Tod and Pinchin tracks are different as a course, ... you are right as we can see and I have showed one on top of the other, ... but they both brings the Norfolk at the same position at from 05:41, ... thru 06:00 ..until 06:29.

In my opinion Tod track is the correct one as said several times. If I have to choose between them, today I will choose Tod and not the Pinchin one.

Moving now to the 06:29 point and the mark of Hood sinking place Tod put there close,..but after teh course alteration to West that occurred after Norfolk was passing aside the Hood wreck site, ... and that in my opinion now is misleading you graphically as you showed me above, ..since it is in line with the 230° T needed to go there, ... but well after the 06:29 time.

Anyway I think now I need to make an exercise with you, ..so hopefully everything will be clear to everybody after.

Unfortunately I am away from my home pc so a bit limited now and until Saturday with maps and pc performances, ... but probably I will still be able to explain it.

Reference this data :

At 05:41 my position, HMS Norfolk, his 63° 39' N and 31° 10' W ( point A ), while in reality he was around 11 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 around 11 sea miles to SW on bearing 245° from that communicated position ( point D ).

Lets try to determine points C and D now with my limited tools here now.

The 63° 39' N and 31° 10' W ( point A ) at 05:41 once corrected will become real position 63° 35' N and 31° 32' W ( point C ), around 11 sea miles to sw on 245°T as you can see on my map here, so minus - 4' North and +22' West

Similarly at 06:29 the 63° 22' N and 31° 46' W ( point B ) will become real position 63° 18' N and 32° 08' W ( point D ) again around 11 sea miles to sw on 245°T as you can see on my map here, similarly as said minus - 4' North and +22' West

You can see those last 2 positions with a new RED dot on point B and a YELLOW dot on point D.
SK_NK_PoW_at_0320_012.jpeg
SK_NK_PoW_at_0320_012.jpeg (76.91 KiB) Viewed 1798 times
Now even visually you can realize that Norfolk was already around 4/5 sea miles south of the Hood sinking position at 06:29, ... which is consistent of being at around 11 sea miles from her at 06:00, ... having sailed a bit less than 15 sea miles on 29 minutes at 30 knots ... and being 4/5 sea miles south of an object that was distant only around 10/11 sea miles from you at 06:00 so 29 minutes before.

If it was at 10/11 sea miles from you at 06:00, ... after 29 minutes and 14/15 sea miles covered, ... you must be after her of something like 4/5 sea miles, ... it is obvious.

The 06:29 radio geographical position communicated once corrected with the same error factor used at 02:29 and a bit enlarged error factor at 05:41 above on the Norfolk track, ... perfectly place her at 4/5 sea miles south of the Hood exact sinking position I have showed with a GREEN dot approx, ... on purpose.

My personal guess is that Tod incorrectly estimated the real Hood sinking position and due to Norfolk communicated position at 06:29 and Hood incorrect sinking place communicated too 2 times close to it, ... he put them too close one to another on his strategical map.

NOTE : the minus -4' and plus +22' are my estimate for this exercise, ... like the map is obviously approx, ...

I 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 )

Post Reply