Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:44 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

no problem, you can refrain from posting, meanwhile we read what has been published already about this topic.


Forensic_analysis_links.jpg
Forensic_analysis_links.jpg (26.42 KiB) Viewed 409 times


We have seen your 2002 map that surely will be highly appreciated by someone now.

It was associated to one of the versions of your first Forensic Analysys and I personally think it is a good enough map.
It is in fact very close to the 1978/1980 ones and very close in line of principles to my one of 2005 as it must be with today available evidence.

Lets see on the second above link for the Cameron expedition, … a link I strongly suggest everyone to read and evaluate, … by enrolling ( free ) and download the pdf about this topic.
So, lets see what you showed on the report for the 3 PoW received hits on May 24th, 1941.
I see you used my Bismarck drawing from the Storia Militare article and I am absolutely OK with it : well done. :ok:


For an easy verification please see page 3 on this link :

http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... trait3.htm

BS_received_hits_PoW_May_24th.jpg
BS_received_hits_PoW_May_24th.jpg (66.98 KiB) Viewed 409 times


Once again I applaud your selection, ... like for the map above, ... but I am sure that you easily realize that merging those 2 inputs you provided on your articles above, ... you just obtain what I have showed yesterday, ... in a bigger and more accurate details.

I mean this one :

BS_received_PoW_Hits.jpg
BS_received_PoW_Hits.jpg (60.77 KiB) Viewed 409 times

It is not such a complicated work to be done, ... in fact it took me just 5 more minutes.


On the second link pdf we have also the explanations and the photo correlations to the bow wave exit hole on starboard side from the compartment XX painted white wave area.

So, where is the disagreement here ?

It seems to me we are perfectly in synch, ... as far as I can see, ... and the hits came surely from forward the beam.

Do I miss something ?


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 )

Bill Jurens
Supporter
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Bill Jurens » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:02 am

It IS hard to stay out of this...

Antonio recently posted a profile and asked "Am I missing something?"

The short answer is 'yes'. A few things.

The first is that I don't really think the profile drawing is mine. It doesn't appear in my files listings anywhere, and carries no 'C' number. So, although at this remove I can't really be certain about who put this drawing in there, I'm pretty sure I didn't select it. Nor, at least to the best of my knowledge, would I have used it in the manner indicated. I'ts not my style to take drawings from other sources and re-use them without acknowledgement. In any case, I would have almost certainly removed irrelevant items such as the apparent references to the angular range of main battery train, and would almost certainly have recommended deleting the times attributed to the various impacts. You will note that other drawings in the paper, done my me, typically have my name attached.

The second thing is that it is important to note that the papers you mentioned are all authored by multiple contributors. In such circumstances one often -- one might almost say always -- encounters situations where authors disagree, and it's typical to find that each author is only responsible for, and in that regard fully agrees with, a portion of the resultant text. The best way to solve this is to have each author produce, quite independently, given chapters in an anthology-like treatment, but that's not often feasible. In that regard, a co-authored paper is often somewhat like the proverbial camel, i.e. a horse designed by a committee.

The third thing is that I am, in the course of my duties, often tasked with the preparation of drawings and diagrams which represent the author's version of events rather than my own, so in many cases my 'signature' at the bottom of a given illustration does not mean that I agree with all of the contents, only that I physically executed the artwork. I am, in most cases, an editor and illustrator, and a given paper is published to illustrate the author's viewpoint of events, etc. not mine...

The point is that it's not safe to conclude that any individual in a group of contributors to a certain paper necessarily agrees with all -- or in some occasions even much -- of the content. It's also not safe to assume that a reluctance to express a dissenting view means there is no dissenting view to be expressed (although that may be the case) only that academic protocol and plain good manners precludes, except in unusual cases, expressing such dissenting views in subsequent correspondence. If one is really really unhappy with the content of the paper, the proper approach is to have one's name removed from the authors list. But the fact that one's name remains is certainly no guarantee that all authors are in perfect correspondence on every detail expressed in the paper, only that they have in effect done an internal 'peer review' before publication and don't disagree to an extent which is, in effect, intolerable. It also must be seen as representing, at best, the contributor's opinion of the situation at the time the paper was written, which may of course, subsequently change.

It remains my opinion that the quality of the evidence available renders the construction of a definitive track chart of the Denmark Strait action, if not frankly impossible, highly problematical. This represents a reasonable interpretation of my general assessment regarding the path of the projectile which passed through Bismarck's bow as well. While it is true that for the majority of the action the relative target angles, etc. would suggest an entry from ahead of the beam, the geometry of the action is not sufficiently defined to enable one to preclude the possibility of an approach from aft of the beam, particularly if such a hit took place relatively late in the engagement. My assessments of the descriptions of the damage suggest that an entry from aft of the bow is more in accordance with the geometry of the ship. These are, of course, mutually incompatible geometries, and choosing one over the other with certainty represents, in my opinion, an over-interpretation of the evidence available. (This is, incidentally, more-or-less in agreement with the Admiralty assessments based on interviews with survivors; their conclusion was essentially that the exact flight path was essentially indeterminate...)

For what it is worth, I have in recent work typically annotated drawings of the projectile flight path and explosion point, etc. as 'approximate'.

Bill Jurens.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 814
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:36 am

Before anyone gets too invested in using the "straddling ranges" from McMullen's salvo plot to calculate/extrapolate range rates, it will be very important to take into account: (a) the dispersion characteristics of the 14-in Mk VII versus range; and (b) salvo mean point of impact (MPI). Just because a straddle was marked on the plot for a gun range of 21,150 yds, 18,250 yds or 16,450 yds, does not necessarily mean that was exactly the range to the target ship.

Although MPI would probably not have been a source of really dramatic range deviations, the dispersion characteristics of the 14-in Mk VII in the early war period (1941/1942) were quite considerable. Progress in Naval Gunnery - 1942/1943 records the result of seven different full-charge battle practice shoots featuring the battleships of the KGV class.

Date of Shoot ----- Mean Range ----- 50 pct Zone ----- Estimated average patterns for 5 shot / 3 shot salvoes
18 Sep 1941 ------- 11,700 yards ---- 326 yards -------- 618 yards / 468 yards
12 Jun 1942 ------- 18,200 yards ---- 407 yards -------- 772 yards / 584 yards
02 Sep 1942 ------- 21,400 yards ---- 413 yards -------- 783 yards / 593 yards
02 Oct 1942 ------- 19,000 yards ---- 413 yards -------- 783 yards / 593 yards
17 Nov 1942 ------- 14,500 yards ---- 251 yards -------- 476 yards / 360 yards
19 Jan 1943 ------- 18,000 yards ---- 323 yards -------- 613 yards / 464 yards
06 July 1943 ------ 21,000 yards ---- 360 yards -------- 683 yards / 517 yards

Under such circumstances, the naturally random dispersion of a limited number of shots (especially in cases of only 2 or 3 shots) within the salvo pattern could create a situation whereby a distant observer might sense a straddle when the gun range was actually hundreds of yards short or over the target. This could be the case for average patterns; the maximum statistically predicted pattern might, in the worst case, conceivably reach up to 4x the length of the 50 pct Zone.


B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2754
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:56 am

Hello everybody,
Herr Nilsson wrote: "The existence (or non-existence) of your black list has no relevance for me."
as well as this denier's existence (or non-existence...) has no relevance for me.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:12 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)

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2754
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:11 am

Byron Angel wrote: "Just because a straddle was marked on the plot for a gun range of 21,150 yds, 18,250 yds or 16,450 yds, does not necessarily mean that was exactly the range to the target ship."
Hi Byron,
I agree of course, and I have never taken the distances as 100% correct. IMO, that's why the estimated track of Bismarck in the salvo plot is not a straight line on course 220°.

However, even taking into account all dispersion data, the straddles gives us a good approximation of Bismarck distance: based on them, in no way Bismarck could have been on a course 270° or even 250°, at any stage of the battle before Hood explosion.
She was always on course 220° (or even slightly less than 220°), for sure not more westerly.
She closed the range of almost 5000 yards in 4 minutes (5:56:10 till 6:00:30 after Hood explosion) and this closure rate is strictly only possible with Bismarck on around 220° (even slightly less, 215°), never more to west than that. Even applying the dispersion data, we get almost 4000 yards closure in 4 minutes, thus again no possible course other than around 220°(max 230° if by a lucky chance the dispersion data are used in their "worst case"). Before 5:56, we have photo NH69722 showing Bismarck following PG on course 220° as well.

This is a simple concept that Mr.Wadinga is unable to accept, in his desperate search for a (wrong) battlemap showing Bismarck turning away before Hood explosion, following his declared agenda.
As Antonio correctly pointed out, the turn of Bismarck was due to the torpedo alarm at 6:03, not before, with no reason.


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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:39 am

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

thanks for your response, ... it surely helps on restoring a correct approach in this forum.

I hope everybody else will follow your example.

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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Herr Nilsson » Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:36 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:56 am
Hello everybody,
Herr Nilsson wrote: "The existence (or non-existence) of your black list has no relevance for me."
as well as this denier's existence (or non-existence...) has no relevance for me.


Bye, Alberto
:ok:
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:54 pm

Hello everybody,

what I have found particularly interesting is the second photo of the shell that found her way out from the starboard side on top of the white wave painted on the bow at compartement XX as demonstrated.


Forensic_analysis_stb_hole_01.jpg
Forensic_analysis_stb_hole_01.jpg (51.01 KiB) Viewed 329 times


I mean this photo :

Forensic_analysis_stb_02.jpg
Forensic_analysis_stb_02.jpg (92.79 KiB) Viewed 329 times


Opinions now are more than welcome.

Bye Antonio
Attachments
Forensic_analysis_stb_hole_01.jpg
Forensic_analysis_stb_hole_01.jpg (51.01 KiB) Viewed 329 times
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 )

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 814
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:15 pm

What photo caption identifies the starboard exit hole of the projectile (or the projectile head) as being in compartment XX? I see none. In fact, one photo caption describes the exit hole as situated "just above the forward edge of the false bow wave", which places it in compartment XXI.

B

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:56 pm

Hello everybody,

as explained days ago :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=30#p80827

BS_stb_Treffer_1_01.jpg
BS_stb_Treffer_1_01.jpg (42.38 KiB) Viewed 291 times

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by wadinga » Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:13 am

Hello All,

I predict the creation of a drawing showing a shell path entering at the very foremost part of compartment 21 on the port side and leaving at the very aftermost part on the starboard side. This will be the new absolutely accurate and irrefutable shell path, replacing the previous absolutely accurate and irrefutable shell path, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the shell arrived from forward of the beam...............ish.


All the best

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

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 814
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Byron Angel » Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:13 am

Go here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY-9BDJX45g
4:02 mark in video: Front edge of painted bow wave is situated forward of the fourth porthole on the starboard bow.

With respect to your diagram, compare the porthole locations in the top longitudinal profile to those depicted in the color scheme drawing below it. The porthole locations differ; hence the shell exit location marked in the color scheme drawing is not in the correct location.

B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2754
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:58 am

Hi Byron,

I'm afraid I don't see any major difference between this image (time 4:02 in the documentary you indicated above) and the drawing posted previously by Antonio.

Bow_Wave.jpg
Bow_Wave.jpg (10.77 KiB) Viewed 226 times

In the second row of portholes, the white bow wave covers the 3 portholes after the first one on the left, with other 5 portholes to the right on the dark grey painting. The first and the three "white" portholes are just after the armor belt end. Possibly the difference is in the first row of portholes, but I'm not an expert of Bismarck's drawings/alterations and it may just be the effect of perspective on the curved hull.
The second row of portholes and the position of the armor belt is exactly the same as Antonio's drawing (I checked them also vs Hans Gally drawings and they match) and the compartment is clearly the XX, not the XXI (despite the "predictions" of a very imaginative guy here above....).



So said, I still have myself some doubts about the possibility to identify clearly a hole in compartment XXI as belonging to PoW on May 24 in a ship that received so many hits on 27, even if this one looks like a very good candidate.
However, I trust mathematics and the closure rate of Bismarck in the PoW salvo plot leaves no doubt that she was on course around 220° during the whole time when Hood was afloat.
Therefore any hit (and German accounts are in agreement that this bow hit was the very first one on board...) received between 5:55:xx (photo NH69722) and 6:00:30 (salvo 14 falling over after last straddle at salvo 13) must have come from forward the beam (around 20°).

This is "irrefutable", not the identity the holes in the hull and not even their analysis (based on sometime confused and incomplete witnesses and accounts).


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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:37 am

Hello everybody,

as very wisely Bill Jurens suggested days ago, … in order to do a Forensic Analysis about something, … you must have a very detailed set of drawings and very good recent set of photos of what you are looking at.

This said, … and in any case, ... my above demonstration, … for the current needs of this discussion, ... is precise enough to show where that exit hole is located on the wreck, … and it is with no doubts into the compartment XX ( 20th ) and not on the XXI ( 21st ).

But as I wrote above, … I had anticipated 8 days ago this easy demonstration.

Here some more food for thoughts, … with Bismarck leaving the Grimstad Fjord for the Atlantic ocean having been repainted and showing her starboard side white wave.

Bismarck_leaving_Norway.jpg
Bismarck_leaving_Norway.jpg (27.59 KiB) Viewed 206 times

I am sure the good eyes and smart brain will notice something, … when we compare this photo, … with the Kiel Scheerhafen white wave profile of the photo that Alberto posted above, … and of course with the white wave profile you can fairly easily realize on the wreck photo above.


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 )

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 814
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Byron Angel » Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:41 pm

Unless it can be clearly demonstrated that a re-painting of the false bow wave resulted in the pattern in its entirety being relocated aft, or the pattern being longitudinally shortened in such a manner as to move its forward edge to a position well aft of the original, the simple fact that the pattern was re-painted provides no proof of anything in terms of the location of the projectile exit hole..

B

Post Reply