Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:30 pm

Hi Duncan,
exceptions (and lucky hits) are not the rule but anyway the hits you mention happened below 10sm.

At DS no ship hit over 10,44 sm (PoW :clap: 6th salvo). Germans hit only below 10 sm, with PG scoring a hit at 4th salvo from 9.3 sm and Bismarck "only" at her 6th or 7th salvo from around 9,5 sm.

Norfolk was at 13.5 sm at 05:41 and could have been (without her turn to port) at around 12 sm at 5:55. Again, the probability of a "lucky hit" on Norfolk was very, very low and the probability that Lutjens could decide to commit "suicide" firing at her instead of at BC1 was even less.


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: 1409
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by wadinga » Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:58 pm

Hello All,

Antonio has presented the ranges measured (with tolerances) aboard Norfolk thus:

So disregarding that the gunnery officer wrote that open fire was at 06.06 ( incorrect by any mean ) and assuming it was 05.53 as it was on reality, then we can assume we have 2 available distances between Norfolk and Bismarck, at 05.53 ( open fire ) and at 06.09 ( cease fire ) separated by 16 minutes as stated by the Norfolk gunnery officer.

The 2 distances are at 05.53 equal to 30.400 yards = 15,01 sea miles and at 06.09 equal to 27.200 yards = 13,43 sea miles.
So why would anybody believe his later geometrical guesswork ranges, and debate about what might be achieved at them, when the record says otherwise?

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3482
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:03 pm

Hello everybody,

Ruler.jpeg
Ruler.jpeg (14.13 KiB) Viewed 1796 times
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg (71.44 KiB) Viewed 1794 times
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: 1409
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by wadinga » Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:46 pm

Hello Antonio,

You must have plenty of time on your hands. :lol:

(Every inch a king, every foot a Ruler.)

Why are measurements made in 1941 less valid than something you have cooked up to serve your agenda many years later?

This plan, like all the others, deliberately distorts the track of Norfolk to make it appear she was closer to the enemy than she measured.

Unfortunately, a simple piece of boxwood is incapable of measuring the distance from reality you are prepared to go to, in order sell your alternate.

If Norfolk had really been as close as you pretend, then "engage farthest left target" would been her! :wink:

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3482
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:01 pm

Hello everybody,

someone is better finally realize that there are incorrect ( intentionally made in that way ) documents and correct ones.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495

The above map is correct and those were the real distances among the warships.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231

It is useless the keep on " trolling " this thread with no value add.

The reality showed above will not change, ... it is based on mathematics and geometry, ... not on a " troll " opinion I cannot care less.


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: 3430
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by dunmunro » Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:14 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Hi Duncan,
exceptions (and lucky hits) are not the rule but anyway the hits you mention happened below 10sm.

At DS no ship hit over 10,44 sm (PoW :clap: 6th salvo). Germans hit only below 10 sm, with PG scoring a hit at 4th salvo from 9.3 sm and Bismarck "only" at her 6th or 7th salvo from around 9,5 sm.

Norfolk was at 13.5 sm at 05:41 and could have been (without her turn to port) at around 12 sm at 5:55. Again, the probability of a "lucky hit" on Norfolk was very, very low and the probability that Lutjens could decide to commit "suicide" firing at her instead of at BC1 was even less.


Bye, Alberto
Alberto, what was the range rate between PoW and Bismarck and PE to Hood?

What would have been the range rate between Bismarck and Norfolk?

And if no one could hit anything at these ranges with much more accurate weapons than possessed by W-W, what would have been the point of him opening fire?

Again, and I'll capitalize this for emphasis: NO ONE KNEW LUTJENS' INTENTIONS PRIOR TO BISMARCK OPENING FIRE, and that included the crew of the Bismarck, according to the Baron.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:53 pm

Dunmunro wrote: "NO ONE KNEW LUTJENS' INTENTIONS PRIOR TO BISMARCK OPENING FIRE"
Hi Duncan,
yes, but Lutjens scuttling Bismarck or ramming the Geenland ice was NOT a sensible hypothesis, as well as Bismarck opening fire (with the main armament) against the cruisers, having to face two battleships, ready to engage and charging like bulls..... :negative:

you wrote: "What would have been the range rate between Bismarck and Norfolk?"
Sure, the range rate was much higher between BC1 and the Germans, but the distance at which the first hit (after several salvos) was obtained was much much shorter than against Norfolk......and AGAIN, Norfolk could maneuver already after the 1st salvo, doubling the range rate vs BC1 one, had Lutjens decided to waste ammunition against a cruiser. :negative:



The only sensible argument of yours is Norfolk fire effectiveness: NF was at 13.5 sm at 05:41, she could have been at around 12 sm at 05:55 and at around 11 sm at 06:00. His fire would have been initially ineffective, but she could:
1) progressively get the range, as firing at a target that was on a perfectly steady course 220° and not being fired at.
2) induce Lutjens to order PG to switch her fire at Norfolk or even to order PG to maneuver, in order to engage Norfolk, helping Holland and leaving Bismarck alone against BC1 ships
3) after 06:00, be of invaluable help to PoW in difficulty, being almost within effective range at that time.


Of course the same for Suffolk, whose range rate (had she not turned north due to the "mirage" :oops: ) was zero and that was at less then 10 sm distance from Bismarck already at 05:41 and that was ignored by Bismarck.... At least for Suffolk we have a clear (late) explanation (from Ellis autobiography) of the reasons why he did not consider worth to open fire.....


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

Francis Marliere
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Francis Marliere » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:28 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Francis Marliere,

Where is your value add here now ?

Do you know how to use a ruler measuring the above map distances ?

My very good friends Philippe Caresse and Robert Dumas both knows how to do it, are French and are in line with me, so what ?

I will avoid to list all the other friends and supporters from all nations on this planet, ... and many are British, ... since this discussion is simply ridicolous.

If you have evidences to counter or challenge with value add what I am stating, ... bring them out and show it to me.

Bye Antonio :D
Dear Antonio,

1 - I respect every one and every one's opinion here, so do not see personal offence.

2 - An author cannot decide wether his theory is an opinion or accepted as a fact by his peers. In the present case, your theory is not accepted by many people inside and outside the forum (I remember that M. Jurens was very sceptical).

3 - That does not mean that you are a fool (or something else) and that you did not make long, hard and laudable research. It's just, as far as I understand things, that some people have other interpretations of the historical facts.

4 - I know how to use a ruler, but I fear it's irrevelent here.

5 - I don't know what is my value add here and now, but if you need now a 'value add certificate' to say something on a public forum, things will become very complicated for a lot of people. Please list me which people are authorized to talk and who has to shut up.

6 - I do not understand why wording often becomes so unfriendly in this discussion.

7 - You wrote 'I found any type of opposition especially on the British forum members'. My interpretation (and I'm not the only one to interprate your words this way) is : you say that some people refute your theory because they are British. I just remark that it's not the case because there are some people who are non British (and in my case, as a French, non British-friendly) who remain sceptical of your theory.

Best regards,

Francis

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3482
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:49 am

Hello everybody,

@ Francis Marliere,

OK, I see the post intention was not only about that map and the Norfolk and Suffolk distances but about my whole work on the Court Martial attempt re-construction until the rewarding done by the King George VI.

1) We are in agreement, I hate personal offenses and do not like to use them unles to respond to someone offending me. I am not that type of guy that take an offense for free. If someone offends me, he is going to pay the price for it.

2) I am sorry but at the beginning many could have been justified to call it my theory, ... but with the later findings I had to admit that some British Historians arrived to my same conclusions even if without going so deep into the details of it, ... from the beginning until the end of what you still call my theory.
We are talking Stephen Roskill ( I did not even know who he was until recently ), Corelli-Barnett, Graham Rhys-Jones, just to list the most important ones.
So, can you still call it my theory ? I guess not.
I was going to be proud for this scoop, ... but I cannot take credits for what others discovered and published long before I did.

3) I did more deep reserches and provided the complete scenario and logic of what happened in full details.
For obvious reasons the British Historians did not do it, and there is where my value add apply, ... my credits, ... I have been the first one to make the complete picture becoming public.
Everybody can keep his own opinion and interpretation as long as they are ok with it.
I do not pretend to convince everybody and have 100 % of people accepting my work.
Surely there are many out there that would have liked I had never started doing it and never to publish it. I am sorry for them.

4) Yes, it is irrilevant now given the questions above and after. Still it is always very helpful while re-constructing action events at sea to double check with the reality showed on maps. I can tell you that on the hundreds of naval books I have this is a very weak point and often what they wrote does not correspond to what they showed on available historical maps.

5) Everybody can talk and write here in, this is a free and public forum. No certificate need. Just to follow teh forum rules. But if one suddendly appears on a thread that never saw him writing before, ... in the middle of a discussion, ... I was expecting a value add from his post, ... and not only a side taken without even the reason for it to be. At least now I know why.

6) The answer is easy. When cornered and with no possibility to counter or challenge anymore a statement or a demostration, there are persons that started doing that intentionally, ... obvioulsy.
No one like to loose into a discussion, ... there are very few fair persons, .. and this is a HOT debate with a side taken approach, ... unfortunately many cannot thing with a cold brain and calm anymore, ... given the arguments, ... and I understand, ... but I cannot accept it too.

7 ) The majority of the" challengers" here in are British, .. or RN strong supporters anyway. There are also other exceptions.
In fairness I have to say that I have very strong supporters on the British side as well, ... so it is half and half everywhere as logic.

Closing I like to remark and underline the fact that it is not my theory, and reading the books of the British Historian authors I listed above you will find it already published many years ago, especially by the Royal Navy Official Historian for World War 2, so by Stephen Roskill.

The step forward if one is interested on knowing more is to read what I have re-constructed and properly linked.

If one is not interested about it, there is no need to read my works.

What one cannot do is to come in here and start offending me and my work, ... it is clearly against this forum rules, ... but mostly it is against a minimum level of education.

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 )

Francis Marliere
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Francis Marliere » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:31 pm

Antonio
Antonio Bonomi wrote:But if one suddendly appears on a thread that never saw him writing before, ... in the middle of a discussion, ... I was expecting a value add from his post, ... and not only a side taken without even the reason for it to be. At least now I know why.
You are right that I did not participate a lot to this subject. However, I did some remarks at the beginning of the discussion (a long time ago) that you had forgotten (and it's no problem, ther were so many exchanges). I pointed out that even if Norfolk and Suffolk were in range to engage, RADM Walke-Waker had good reasons not to open fire. IMHO he would spoil Hood & PoW's gunfire without achieving a lot.

Best regards,

Francis

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3482
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:04 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Francis Marliere,

I know you since a lot of time, and I remember you very well, and being one of the senior forum members I think I know everybody here in quite well.

Thanks for your clarification.

Let me clarify some points :

1) The distance of Norfolk and Suffolk to the enemy at the beginning of the action has nothing to do with the charges Adm Pound made to RearAdm Wake-Walker during his call with Adm Tovey related to the attempt to bring Wake-Walker to a trial for Court Martial.

2) The charges for RearAdm Wake-WAlker during the Court martial attempt threat were only related to the failure to re-engage the enemy in the afternoon with the PoW, after being " invited " to think about it by the Admiralty.

3) What I wanted to explain was the fact that those Norfolk and Suffolk distances has been subject to evident alterations and incorrect declarations during that period with ref. Hood Board 1 and 2, to " The Plot " and mostly to Adm Tovey dispatches point 17.

Now that it is clear at what distances they really where, thanking also Capt Ellis own biography at Churchill archives confirming my researched work, ... anyone can make the evaluations that, ... given the incorrect previous declarations of them being at around 15 sea miles, ... no one can even think about being possible, ... and that was the intention of those alterations obviously, ... to take them both out of any possible involvement during the battle.

My goal was only this, ... demonstrate the real distances and explain the reasons of all the alterations.

I stop here, ... and I will not enter into the personal way to evaluate what they could or could not have done, ... and I respect your opinion about it written above, .... and I will not comment on what the Admiralty could or could not have additionally charged to them ( both Wake-Walker and Ellis ) in case of an inquiry about it, ... that never occurred.

It simply did not happen and we know now, ... almost all the reasons why it did not happen.

Now we know at what real distance Norfolk and Suffolk really where during the battle, and this is not in discussion any longer, ... because there is a precise map made by me by using all the available data and it is up there to be seen, measured and verified.

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
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Dave Saxton » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:01 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Hi Duncan,
exceptions (and lucky hits) are not the rule but anyway the hits you mention happened below 10sm.

At DS no ship hit over 10,44 sm (PoW :clap: 6th salvo). Germans hit only below 10 sm, with PG scoring a hit at 4th salvo from 9.3 sm and Bismarck "only" at her 6th or 7th salvo from around 9,5 sm.

Norfolk was at 13.5 sm at 05:41 and could have been (without her turn to port) at around 12 sm at 5:55. Again, the probability of a "lucky hit" on Norfolk was very, very low and the probability that Lutjens could decide to commit "suicide" firing at her instead of at BC1 was even less.


Bye, Alberto
Why are you assuming that the shooting by the ships at DS was the rule and not the exception?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:20 pm

Hi Dave,
I'm not. I have just proposed what is my view in terms of probability and what was the actual shooting at DS with the actual conditions (and also on 23, 24 and 26 out of DS battle).
Personally, if you ask me, regarding the first shots, I think Hood fired far below expectations and probabilities, PoW almost in line, PG well and BS in line with expectations and probabilities at DS battle.

I also think that Suffolk fired quite well on 24 afternoon, straddling Bismarck at 3rd (out of 9) salvo from 10.4 sm, while Bismarck fired 10 salvos, never straddling Suffolk according to Ellis (SF was however maneuvering under smoke....) even if some shells fell very close, so a bit disappointing IMO.

BTW, I was slightly wrong in measuring the distances at which PG and BS hit for the first time at DS (apparently I have my own problems with a ruler): PG hit at 05:57:30 was from 9sm, Bismarck first hit (assuming it was the "spotting top" one at around 5:58:30, thus her 6th semi-salvo) was from 8,9 sm.


In these conditions, what is, according to you, the probability of a very first 15" salvo hitting Norfolk, being at 13.5 sm from Bismarck, on a converging course and 30 knots speed ?


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: 1409
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by wadinga » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:18 pm

Hello Alberto,
the probability of a very first 15" salvo hitting Norfolk, being at 13.5 sm from Bismarck
Easy. Zero. At 27,000 yds only two ships have ever hit another moving vessel and then with low rate of change of range. However this was the minimum range measured by Norfolk, not at the beginning of the action, but the end.

Interestingly it is much the same for 30,500 yds which is the range measured at the beginning of the action.

I notice Antonio has not listed these gunnery details as falsified documents below, but I presume since they do not agree with
because there is a precise map made by me
he does consider they are falsified.

Suffolk reported at 05:20 she was 15 miles astern of Bismarck who bore 203T, with no speed advantage, so she could not be within effective gun range 20 minutes later.
thanking also Capt Ellis own biography
His late life recollection is simply wrong, whatever the "precise map" says.

All the best

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

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Dave Saxton » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:48 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:Hi Dave,
I'm not. I have just proposed what is my view in terms of probability and what was the actual shooting at DS with the actual conditions (and also on 23, 24 and 26 out of DS battle).
Personally, if you ask me, regarding the first shots, I think Hood fired far below expectations and probabilities, PoW almost in line, PG well and BS in line with expectations and probabilities at DS battle.

I also think that Suffolk fired quite well on 24 afternoon, straddling Bismarck at 3rd (out of 9) salvo from 10.4 sm, while Bismarck fired 10 salvos, never straddling Suffolk according to Ellis (SF was however maneuvering under smoke....) even if some shells fell very close, so a bit disappointing IMO.

BTW, I was slightly wrong in measuring the distances at which PG and BS hit for the first time at DS (apparently I have my own problems with a ruler): PG hit at 05:57:30 was from 9sm, Bismarck first hit (assuming it was the "spotting top" one at around 5:58:30, thus her 6th semi-salvo) was from 8,9 sm.


In these conditions, what is, according to you, the probability of a very first 15" salvo hitting Norfolk, being at 13.5 sm from Bismarck, on a converging course and 30 knots speed ?


Bye, Alberto
The Hipper had a slightly older fire control system than PG and BS with a smaller optical rangerfinder than either, but the same radar models, at Barents Sea, and was shooting at destroyers in more difficult conditions. I think that was more representative of the potential that W-W had to assume might be possible.

Didn't BS straddle Norfolk consecutively previously? Straddling is shooting as good as anybody can and it's just a matter of luck that the straddled ship is not hit. That had to be on W-W 's mind.

I'm not surprised that Bismarck's accuracy fell off slightly when shooting at ships in fog and smoke on the 24th. We know the aft radar position had a problem with bearing accuracy slack, and the foretop set was not functioning.
Last edited by Dave Saxton on Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Post Reply