Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Herr Nilsson » Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:20 am

Hello Alberto,

I don't think so. The main issue is that most maps including Antonio's are based on tracks from official reports (except Bismarck's). Therefore most maps are looking very similar at first glance. However, a closer look reveals that both Hood's and PoW's tracks are not the same like in Antonio's map. Antonio says in his article that the fatal salvo was fired at 15,700 m, the map in the book says 16,850 m. Doesn't that mean that the maps have to be different? So the only thing that was possibly taken from Antonio's map is Bismarck's track.
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3497
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:13 pm

Hello everybody,
Herr Nilsson wrote: "most maps including Antonio's are based on tracks from official reports....most maps are looking very similar at first glance"
Not at all, Mr.Nilsson. Please refer to this thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&hilit=rohwer&start=240#p68500).

Schmalenbach's first map (download/file.php?id=1909) looks very, very different from Antonio's 2005 one, as well as the one in the last edition of the Baron's book or in Santarini's one.... All of them origin from the first one (and they are clearly wrong, despite the attempt of the "fellow contributor" to support them recently here...)

Also the original Baron's map (with Schmalenbach and Rohwer download/file.php?id=1907, download/file.php?id=1908), despite being much, much better, looks quite different from Antonio's 2005 one as well as Jurens's 2002 map (download/file.php?id=3301).

Antonio's 2005 map was the first one to correctly position the two German tracks using the analysis of the photos and the film and putting together the tracks of Germans and BC1 in the correct way, respecting their known cross-bearings.

Both Mr.Toussaint map (download/file.php?id=3193) and page 211 map are fully adopting Antonio's original map (download/file.php?id=3583) and, by logical consequence, his methodology to analyse the available photographic evidence.

Herr Nilsson wrote: "the only thing that was possibly taken from Antonio's map is Bismarck's track."
Of course Bismarck's track (course 220°, 270°, 220°) has been adopted from Antonio's map (not "possibly"), as well as the positioning of the BS track compared to Prinz Eugen (thanks to the study of photos and film), that is the added value of Antonio's battlemap. But it's not only that.
In summary:
a) Norfolk track (from Pinchin's Plot) has been inserted in the map fully using the (wrong) bearings to the German squadron used by Antonio in his 2005 map, instead of using the correct (green) ones. Please read details my post (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=30#p84686) and follow the attached links.
b) Norfolk track is cutting PoW track at exactly the same instant (6:12:30 NF and 05:54:20 for PoW and 6:19:30 NF and 06:12:40 for PoW) in page 211 map and in Antonio's 2005 one: this cannot be a "fortuitous circumstance"....
c) etc...

Herr Nilsson wrote: "a closer look reveals that both Hood's and PoW's tracks are not the same like in Antonio's map"
The tracks of PoW and Hood are the same as in Antonio's 2005 battlemap, except the (IMO wrong) 20° turn to port started by PoW at 06:00 (and explicitely denied by Rowell). (However, between 06:00 and 06:05 in page 211 map there are... 6 minutes.... therefore the only modification to Antonio's map is part of... an error)

The only "difference" between the 2 maps is a slight enlargement of an (already too large) battlefield in Antonio's 2005 map.
Btw, I have not yet read in detail the book to try to understand where this strange "16850" meters comes from at page 211, despite the more corretct 15700 meters of 2005 map and despite the last Antonio's very valuable posts here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=360#p81866) where less than 15700 was discussed.
I suspect that the authors have just mixed up yards with meters from Rowell maps and PoW salvo plot here....


Obviously only the authors themselves, if willing/able, can explain what they have done with the map and which kind of agreement they have had with Antonio to use his work.


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: 1395
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Herr Nilsson » Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:49 pm

On the one hand it seems to be unwanted that Antonio's work was possibly adopted (IMHO a little far fetched) on the other hand it is criticised that it wasn't used. ???

I mean, if I were Antonio, I would be very happy, that my old, wrong, flawed, obsolete map was possibly used (having a much newer, better, prettier, irrefutable map up in my sleeve)..... and - believe it or not - absolutely none of my new findings was used either. Oh happy day! I still can publish all of them exclusively in my new book. I don't have to share anything and I'm not fobbed off with just an acknowledgement. All the honour, the reward and the esteem will belong to me .....my precious ....gollum, gollum...
Regards

Marc

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

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:53 pm

I suggest that we dispense with debates over paternity and focus on the analysis offered in this new book.

Byron

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3497
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:49 pm

Hello everybody,
Herr Nilsson wrote: "On the one hand it seems to be unwanted that Antonio's work was possibly adopted (IMHO a little far fetched) on the other hand it is criticised that it wasn't used. "
Thanks for being in agreement about the fact that the map at page 211 is using Antonio's 2005 work almost "in toto" (no answer to my points viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84708, countering your wrong statement that all maps are similar etc., therefore I have to conclude that the point is not "a little far fetched" at all...).

So said, if you have nothing factual to add to this discussion, please "dispense" me with your word games, mocking and insinuations about "honour", "reward", "esteem" and your above Tolkien's rants ("my precious", "gollum", etc.).

One point is that the two maps are fully in line (a fact that everyone can check, superimposing them or even just at first glance), the other is that page 211 map is a fairly good one (not containing any "fantasy jump" recently discussed here) but NOT the best possible reconstruction as per today knowledge, because it does not include all discoveries (mostly from Antonio himself but also from several members of this forum, including you) from 2005 till recently. This is a big shortcoming for a book that should have been the "ultimate" 2019 one and should have presented something new compared to what has already been published.


Byron Angel wrote: "I suggest that we dispense with debates over paternity and focus on the analysis offered in this new book."
Re.page 211 map, I have raised some points that only the authors can (if willing/able) answer. Sorry if the "paternity" (that apparently is not under discussion...) of Antonio's 2005 map (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=30#p84686) terribly annoys you...

When I will have time, I will go through the book and possibly discuss other aspects, for the time being I'm interested in the Denmark Strait battle reconstruction as represented in the map.
Anyway, if not interested, already a discussion is going on about May 27 Bismarck received hits in this same thread and many other aspects of the book have been analysed too... enjoy them.


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: 1395
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Herr Nilsson » Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:49 pm

@Alberto
Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:49 pm
.... countering your wrong statement that all maps are similar etc., therefore I have to conclude that you have no more argument...
I've said most, not all.
Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:49 pm
So said, if you have nothing to add to this discussion, please "dispense" me with your word games, mocking and insinuations about "honour", "reward", "esteem" and your above rants ("my precious", "gollum", etc.).
Well, that was simply self-mockery (no wonder: I'm star sign Gemini). I feel sad that you took it the wrong way, please accept my apologies.

I think Byron is right and suggest that you open an dedicated thread about creatorship.
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3497
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:56 pm

Hello everybody,
Herr Nilsson wrote: "that was simply self-mockery....please accept my apologies...I think Byron is right and suggest that you open an dedicated thread about creatorship"
Apologies accepted.

Regarding the thread, this is the right thread, dedicated to the new book, several aspects have been discussed here, including the map. Many others will be discussed as I'm progressing in the reading...

As apparently there are no argument for countering the fact that the page 211 map (as well as Mr.Toussaint's one) is "adopting" Antonio's 2005 one for several aspects (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84708), please let's either question the map content itself or let's finally agree it's a fairly good map, despite the recent critics of some forum members.


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)

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:50 pm

All distances in page 211 map look too great to be correct (BS open fire is reported by Lutjens at 20800 meters while is 21500 in the map at pag.211
An aside note:
20.800 m distance seem the calculated distance for firecontrol purposes. The Germans use true gun distance as distance when discussing distances. It fairly good fits a ~21.500 m E-mess Entfernung on a track chart considering a approach speed of about 800 m/min for the britisch squadron during 30 sec flighttime of shell.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3497
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:59 am

Hello everybody,

I have just seen (as most of the people reading this forum) Antonio's e-mail to the "moderator" and some interesting answers.
I now better understand why the authors have been "unwilling" to provide any (solicited) explanation about the "similarity" of their page 211 map with Antonio's 2005 one on this forum (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=30#p84686, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84708, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84711, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84713)....

The embarrassed (or even offensive in case of a known “gentleman”) answers (when not able to counter the fact itself) provided via e-mail speak for themselves: everything is clear enough after an easy comparison between the 2 maps attached to Antonio's e-mail, where the evident "adoption" of his 2005 map are demonstrated by the yellow bearings and intersection points.

I avoid to repeat my comments to the pitiable (primary school) excuses like "...most maps are looking very similar at first glance...All maps of North America look more or less the same..." as I have already demonstrated that there is no map "similar" to Antonio's 2005 one except Mr.Toussaint's and page 211 ones (see viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84708), including a very different 2002 Jurens' map (download/file.php?id=3301), that has been later discarded by the author in order to adopt the better Antonio's 2005 one.



As, even in this forum, everybody seem to be in agreement about (or, not being in agreement, is lacking any argument to counter) the fact that page 211 map is "fully adopting" Antonio's 2005 reconstruction (see above posts), I assume that (not having seen any member's complaint against the authors choice of such a map...) everybody by now also agrees that this map is a fairly good one (as per state of art of 2005) for German and BC1 tracks, while it is clearly not re. Norfolk (and Suffolk missing) tracks.
All further discussions about strange turns to 270° of Bismarck at 05:55 or Germans open fire at 05:53 should be once forever closed by this "ultimate" book (or at least the complaints should be addressed to the authors and not to me anymore...).


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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by wadinga » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:35 pm

Fellow Contributors,

It has been said:
As, even in this forum, everybody seem to be in agreement about (or, not being in agreement, is lacking any argument to counter) the fact that page 211 map is "fully adopting" Antonio's 2005 reconstruction (see above posts),
Let there be no doubt, I do not agree at all that the page 211 map which I have only just seen, thanks to Mr Bonomi's unauthorised reproduction of copyright material and Round-Robin e-mail, is "fully adopting" his 2005 map. It is instead, clearly an independently-derived melange of existing original sources including Pinchin's plan, and is attempting to adjust for discrepancies, as was Mr Bonomi's 2005 effort before he decided that a grand conspiracy had taken place and he took the liberty of rearranging positions and editing evidence to comply with his pre-formed "intuitions" about cowardice, conspiracy and cover-up.

Mr Jurens has on numerous occasions, along with many others, observed that there is simply insufficient evidence to deliver a precise record of relative positions and hopefully this new map is duly qualified in the text somewhere. For instance I would take issue with the idea PE can execute two speed-sapping emergency turns and major course diversions between 06:10 and 06:25 and still only lose a few metres relative to Bismarck which has cut across the turn.

Additionally since the relationship between Norfolk's track and that of PoW, and therefore their crossing points perpetrates, IMHO understandable, errors from Pinchin's plot, it fails fails to align them as per the far more reliable PoW log entry at 06:34 showing PoW only 1.5 miles astern of Norfolk.

The worst error on the 211 map as far as I can see is that it fails to point out in the scale bar that it is "thousands" of yards. (kiloyards) :wink:

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3497
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:39 pm

Hello everybody,
" I do not agree at all that the page 211 map which I have only just seen, thanks to Mr Bonomi's unauthorised reproduction of copyright material and Round-Robin e-mail, is "fully adopting" his 2005 map."
:lol: "unathorized reproduction" is really the last word that should have been used in such an embarrassing/delicate situation... :lol:


Can a certain "fellow contributor" point out what are the most meaningful and significative changes that the authors would have done to Antonio Bonomi's 2005 map before "proposing" (a very kind word instead of the proper one) it in their book (apart adding the sun position, the range/bearing plot, the geographic references, etc.) ?

Of course not because, in summary:
1) The Bismarck track in relation to Prinz Eugen (that is the great added value of Antonio's 2005 map, built using known documents and mostly correlating all photographic evidences as someone was still refuting here) has been fully "adopted" (euphemistically) without any specific acknoledgement (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=30#p84686).
2) The Norfolk track (that was almost randomly positioned in Antonio's 2005 map, not respecting the bearing to Germans, but that was corrected later on this forum and in our 2017 publication) has been "blindly adopted" (once again using a very kind but inappropriate expression) in page 211 map, as the yellow bearings in Antonio's "Round-Robin" e-mail are fully demonstrating (also see here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84708). The identical intersection points to PoW track are the final proof (Pinchin's Plot mention is simply absurde in this case, as both maps do not respect the Pinchin's bearings to Germans and in "the Plot" the NF track cross Hood one at.. 06:23...).

The fact that the authors themselves have not yet answered here to the above observations is demonstarting that they are unable/unwilling to answer, while leaving alone their poor "supporters", who desperately try to deny even what is evident to a little boy at very first glance.


I would have expected a couple of people here to be more wise and to carefully avoid any comment to such a shamefull situation, but apparently they are (once again) unable to admit the evidence (at any cost...). How difficult is to simply shut-up, when having no argument...



"...Mr Bonomi's 2005 effort before he decided that a grand conspiracy had taken place and he took the liberty of rearranging positions..."
Possibly someone has not yet measured that Antonio's 2005 map (as well as the one published at page 211), had put the Norfolk at 21000 meters from Bismarck at 06:00, thus closer than in Antonio's last calculated position (23000 meters)... :lol:
Apparently the decision about a conspiracy has not prevented Antonio from fairly correcting his errors, even against his "agenda", one thing that someone here on the forum is very reluctant to do....

It's funny to see all these incorrect (and biased) statements in a single post...

"The worst error on the 211 map as far as I can see is that it fails to point out in the scale bar that it is "thousands" of yards. (kiloyards)"
Very Good !
Finally an admission that a certain theory about a turn to 270° of Bismarck at 5:55 (imagined by the same "fellow contributor") is rubbished (hopefully once forever) also by this map, thus that the Prinz Eugen film can be timed precisely between 06:04 and 06:06, as Antonio had already understood in 2005.
An important step forward ! :clap:
Let's hope everybody will give up any impossible theory now that someone much more authoritative than Antonio has just confirmed his 2005 work...


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)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Byron Angel » Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:17 pm

I see we have brewing what appears to be yet another exercise in cynical Italian rhetorical gymnastics. Rather than actually PUBLISHING something ...anything... as they have endlessly pronounced as their intention for at least a decade , our two Italian gentlemen have demonstrated an apparent preference for holding court on this forum - claiming a mantle of divine certitude and papal infallibility over their particular interpretation of the story of Bismarck, endlessly arguing, caviling and quibbling with anyone who dares to question a single point, no matter how great or small.

Now a distinguished and widely respected naval researcher and historian, William Jurens, after several decades of research in collaboration with two other noteworthy naval historians, has had his own work on Bismarck published by two prestigious presses - Seaforth and USNI.

The upshot from Italy? An immediate PUBLIC accusation of plagiarism by Antonio Bonomi, despite the fact that Mr Jurens had quite clearly credited him in his list of contributors. Apparently Mr Bonomi seems to be laboring under the misconception that he holds some unique global copyright on every iota of data related to the story of Bismarck.

For the record .....
I fully and unequivocally support Mr Jurens and consider the accusations and despicable innuendos leveled against him by these two Italian "gentlemen" as utterly without merit or honor or civility or gentility. Shame on them both.


Byron Angel

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:38 pm

As moderator of this forum, I can see where future action on my part to bring the discussion further under control might (and almost certainly would, by some) be interpreted as acting primarily in my own self-interest, as an attempt to stifle critical commentary. I have therefore consulted Mr. Rico -- who might be considered to be more impartial on this issue -- to determine what further action, if any, might be considered most appropriate.

Regarding the criticisms and commentary of the Denmark Strait map itself, I honestly don't feel at this point that there is anything to be gained by my further engagement in what would almost certainly end up as pointless -- and essentially endless -- argumentation. I will therefore refrain from further commentary. This should not, of course, be interpreted as representing any sort of capitulation to some of the rather nasty criticisms already posted here.

I have, in a few places, explained the origins and construction of the Denmark Strait track chart as published in the recent Bismarck book. So far as creative issues are concerned, I am known in the naval historical community by my reputation. I will stand by that.

Regarding previous postings, I would expect that some action will be taken, either by Mr. Rico or myself, over the next few days. One can only hope that these actions will help to restore a more constructive -- and less DEstructive -- tone to the forum.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3497
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:04 pm

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "Now a distinguished and widely respected naval researcher and historian, William Jurens, after several decades of research in collaboration with two other noteworthy naval historians, has had his own work on Bismarck published by two prestigious presses - Seaforth and USNI."
...and he has decided to use for his book the same battlemap created 14 years before by the most expert person about the Denmark Strait battle reconstruction, implicitely recognizing (despite Mr.Angel's impotent anger) that it was the best possible reconstruction (at least up to 2005).

I would however have expected (at least) to find an explicit acknowledgement in the caption of the map (and in the text) that the map itself was (to be very kind) just an author's re-work of Antonio's 2005 one (as clearly demonstrated here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=30#p84686, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84708).



Bill Jurens wrote: "As moderator of this forum, I can see where future action on my part to bring the discussion further under control might (and almost certainly would, by some) be interpreted as acting primarily in my own self-interest, as an attempt to stifle critical commentary. I have therefore consulted Mr. Rico -- who might be considered to be more impartial on this issue -- to determine what further action, if any, might be considered most appropriate..."
An extremely wise decision in his very "delicate" position now...

In the meantime, I do hope that Mr.Rico, differently than the "moderator", will take immediate actions against a forum member who (albeit blinded by his personal anger, as a very partial justification) has dared to write (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84742):

"these two Italian "gentlemen" as utterly without merit or honor or civility or gentility. Shame on them both."

else he will be answered directly by me as he deserves for his insults: the shame is for the time being only on him.

Bill Jurens wrote: "...I will therefore refrain from further commentary..."
another very wise decision, having no way at all to try to say that the map at page 211 is not "adopting" in toto Antonio's work from 2005, including its errors, despite his claims about "reputation".


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)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Battleship Bismarck: A Design and Operational History

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:34 pm

I am, at this point, locking the thread.

Bill Jurens

Locked