Hits on PoW and Bismarck

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by HMSVF » Fri Nov 02, 2018 7:12 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 6:27 pm
HMSVF wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:49 pm


In summary there will never be agreement because there cannot be. You either believe that a battle map can be a rock solid foundation that can be built on or you don't . If this event had occurred in the era of GPS and computers I would say yes it could. That Mr Jurens has said that its almost impossible + the fact that it relies on fallible human input using an analogue technology and pen and paper, i'm not sure it can. So the arguments are pretty much superfluous as its one sides "truth" v another.
... That can be said about absolutely anything anywhere anytime.
Your perception of yourself - as an existing human being , born , raised, grown up, etc, is a matter of impressions fixated on your memory, which, as is well known now, can be easily and definitively altered by life and experience. The documents and belongings that "prove" who you are in relationship to the social establishment can all be bought and/or forged and/or incorrectly filed, written, kept or read. (as a side note, this week in my country, an interesting piece of news provides the curious story of a "dead" man , recently found alive and kicking in an insane asylum, 19 years after the death certificate has been issued, and long after the inheritance had been shared between the relatives)

If you want to debase/put in a relative context a thing, then you should be realy carefull about other things (such as existence) put in the same super-fluid context...

Antonio and Alberto's maps and analysis are simply the best that exist today, and that's all there is to it.
Sigh.


And so it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and (well you get the picture)


This isn’t really a forum is it...

It’s just about who can shout loudest and most aggressively. Wonder if that’s why the Hood site called time on its forum. I came here to learn and to ask questions. Naval history is just a pastime for me,however in real life I’m used to critical analysis and so are my peers. It’s a given.Its how you progress. This is simply a flame war between pro Axis POV and pro RN POV factions in reality.

I’m sure that if I visit again in a years time it will be the same arguments over the smallest aspect and will still come down to the same basic premise. Can a super accurate,minute by minute second by second map based on a 75 year old battle where 2 of combatants documents lay at the bottom of the cold Atlantic be produced?

With it soon to be the season of goodwill to all men I bid you adieu and sincerely wish you all well. :ok:


Best wishes VF :ok:

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:38 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Alecsandros,

you wrote :
Antonio and Alberto's maps and analysis are simply the best that exist today, and that's all there is to it.
Many thanks for you nice compliments, we have put a lot of efforts into this historical re-construction and the results so far are very satisfactory.

@ all,
This is simply a flame war between pro Axis POV and pro RN POV factions in reality.
This is what the " hooligan/deniers " writing in this forum with a pre-conceived view and a side taken approach would like this discussion to be.

Unfortunately for them, ... I made it clear years ago that I have no side taken, ... differently to what they show very evidently, ... and my work is just a pure historical re-construction work searching for the truth and the most precise documentation available.

But, ... as it shows clearly, ... they cannot take it, ... and everything for them is better than the truth.

As we saw also in this case, ... after the Norfolk/Suffolk tracks and the Court Martial one, ... once the evidence becomes too many and they are requested to show the evidence of what they would like to support, ... we see a refusal and a runaway.

Unfortunately we have understood what are the real reasons of their coming here in every day and write in this forum, ... and it is clearly not the love for the historical truth, ... from their own admission.

This is the reason why we received sarcasm, provocations and insults, ... but as you can see it has been useless.

The " trolling " will not stop me, ... and also in this case the " troll " has lost this historical discussion, ... very evidently.

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 )

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by alecsandros » Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:12 pm

HMSVF wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 7:12 pm
Can a super accurate,minute by minute second by second map based on a 75 year old battle where 2 of combatants documents lay at the bottom of the cold Atlantic be produced?

That realy doesn't answer the question I posted, does it ?

I don't know why I smell another (concealed) detractor.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1399
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Herr Nilsson » Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:18 pm

What question?
Regards

Marc

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

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by alecsandros » Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:25 pm

Herr Nilsson wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:18 pm
What question?
If you have to ask, you did't understand the paragraph - which wasn't meant for you anyhow.
But now that you asked, I think it does apply to you as well.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1399
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Herr Nilsson » Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:34 pm

Alecsandros, maybe I‘ve overlooked it, but I couldn‘t find a question. That‘s why I‘m asking.
Regards

Marc

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

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by HMSVF » Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:12 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 8:38 pm
Hello everybody,

@ Alecsandros,

you wrote :
Antonio and Alberto's maps and analysis are simply the best that exist today, and that's all there is to it.
Many thanks for you nice compliments, we have put a lot of efforts into this historical re-construction and the results so far are very satisfactory.

@ all,
This is simply a flame war between pro Axis POV and pro RN POV factions in reality.
This is what the " hooligan/deniers " writing in this forum with a pre-conceived view and a side taken approach would like this discussion to be.

Unfortunately for them, ... I made it clear years ago that I have no side taken, ... differently to what they show very evidently, ... and my work is just a pure historical re-construction work searching for the truth and the most precise documentation available.

But, ... as it shows clearly, ... they cannot take it, ... and everything for them is better than the truth.

As we saw also in this case, ... after the Norfolk/Suffolk tracks and the Court Martial one, ... once the evidence becomes too many and they are requested to show the evidence of what they would like to support, ... we see a refusal and a runaway.

Unfortunately we have understood what are the real reasons of their coming here in every day and write in this forum, ... and it is clearly not the love for the historical truth, ... from their own admission.

This is the reason why we received sarcasm, provocations and insults, ... but as you can see it has been useless.

The " trolling " will not stop me, ... and also in this case the " troll " has lost this historical discussion, ... very evidently.

Bye Antonio

Good luck with your research and all the best.


Best wishes


HMSVF

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by HMSVF » Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:15 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:12 pm
HMSVF wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 7:12 pm
Can a super accurate,minute by minute second by second map based on a 75 year old battle where 2 of combatants documents lay at the bottom of the cold Atlantic be produced?

That realy doesn't answer the question I posted, does it ?

I don't know why I smell another (concealed) detractor.

Life is too short. I wish you well in your research.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by paul.mercer » Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:35 am

Byron Angel wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:32 am
Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:06 pm
Hello everybody,

back is the defeated troll with his last favorite topic: captions....instead of answering points mathematically demonstrating he is wrong. :kaput:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=210#p81086


Why nobody is willing to (very politely and softly :wink:) explain him (more respectfully than I did) that what he babbles (splashes from Hood shells in the photo and film :!: ) is simply a delirious nonsense (or possibly just a frantic denial in order to try to counter what is incontrovertible) ?


Bye, Alberto

Good Lord ..... allow me to make a modest proposal for your gentlemanly consideration: give the insults a rest. My interest in visiting this site (and I suspect that of most others) does not include having to wade through a seemingly endless stream of insult and invective directed at someone whose fault appears to me to be that he simply fails to agree with you on certain points.

Try the following alternative response - "We shall simply have to agree to disagree".

It works very well in maintaining a polite and orderly atmosphere.

Gentlemen,
When I posed my question on this thread it was just to ask fellow members for their expert opinions on what would have been the effect on Bismarck and PoW had the hits on Bismarck's bow and the hit in PoW's keel had exploded and whether Bismarck would have been able to catch PoW after all her flooding and I thank all of you as always for your replies.
What I did not intend however was for the posts to go the same way as they did in the 'Court Martial' debate which turned into a fairly unpleasant
row between some who I have the greatest respect for. We have just lost one member (HMSVF) and may be in danger of losing more should this debate go on.For the sake of all of us who enjoy and contribute their views to this Forum and wish to continue to do so can we call time on this and move on? Please.

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by northcape » Sat Nov 03, 2018 4:00 am

alecsandros wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 6:27 pm
Antonio and Alberto's maps and analysis are simply the best that exist today, and that's all there is to it.
What does "the best" mean? For sure it can not mean "the most accurate". However, if you mean they threw everything into one pot and boil it for a long time, then yes. But that just shows that you have zero understanding of evaluating information in the correct way. Again, the more uncertain information you mix/add up, they poorer and uncertain your model of the reality will be. But tA&A&A will never understand this. That's fine, that lack of understanding is what discriminates amateurs from professionals.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:12 am

Hello everybody,

it is enough to read the HMS Hood website preface of my old 2005 article about this battle published on Storia Militare on December 2005 :

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrai ... trait1.htm

I have made several improvements and corrections since that article was published, and the current version that will see the print on few years is a lot more precise and supported by more evidence and documentation.

Surely there will be no Bismarck turn to starboard on course 270° before the 06:03 and the PG torpedo alarm having caused it, ... that is by fact a pure " invention ", ... and it is enough to read the German documentation to realize it, ...

... surely there will be no Hood shell splashes falling near the Bismarck just like LtntCdr A.G. Skipwith declared and Russell Grenfell clearly wrote on his book " The Bismarck Episode " on 1948 at page 41 and 45, ... the Imperial War Museum LtntCdr A.G. Skipwith ( they renamed him Skipworth ) recorded interview to confirm it, ...

... and surely there will be no PoW retreat at 06:13 after 21 minutes engagement and with Y turret already jammed, ... another " invention " ... just like the around 15 sea miles distance of Norfolk and Suffolk thru the battle, ... both " inventions " coming from Adm Tovey dispatches utilized after by Sir Kennedy on Pursuit, ... despite what Russell Grenfell had already anticipated on page 45 of his 1948 book : " On the other hand those on board the Norfolk and the Suffolk, twelve ( 12 ) to fifteen ( 15 ) miles away on the quarters of the Bismarck, ... " ... later confirmed by the Baron too on his book : 12 to 15 sea miles distance for the 2 heavy cruisers he was ordered to control during the engagement.

Back on this thread subject, the course of the Bismarck from 05:55 until 06:03 was around 220° degrees, in line of battle ( keel line - Kiellinie ) with the Prinz Eugen as demonstrated above and written by Russell Grenfell too on page 46 on his book, ... even Sir Kennedy correctly reported it until her turn to starboard at 06:03 because of the PG torpedo alarm.

This means that she was firing at around 150° true bearing and receiving the PoW incoming hits from around 330° true bearing, ... around 20° forward of her port side beam.

The Bismarck turned 50° to starboard, ... from course 220° to course 270°, ... after the PG torpedo alarm soon after 06:03, ... and the Prinz Eugen did it soon after ( just to avoid any collision possibility ) at around 06:03 and 40 seconds, ... and we can all see this event sequence on going into the PG film at the start of the recorded battle period.

But also this was anticipated by Paul Schmalenbach on his 1978 battle map/book after having had on his hands the PG original map with the related battle timings and having watched the PG film and the photos in the correct sequence, ... as he himself wrote on the battle map caption.

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
Moderator
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Bill Jurens » Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:28 am

In his post of Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:35 pm, Mr. Mercer made a request that further discussions in response to his initial question be terminated. Insofar as he began the thread, I will respect his (quite reasonable) request, and defer from further commentary.

I might summarize before withdrawal. Without going into great detail, although I do feel that Mr. Bonomi's version of the Denmark Strait action represents a laudable effort certainly worthy of careful consideration, I do not believe that -- at least in the absence of new data -- sufficient evidence remains to allow it, or for that matter any other reconstruction, to be considered other than a fairly close approximation.

In that regard, our differences primarily lie in the degree to which we discriminate between items which lie in the grey areas between observation and supposition. We would all agree, for example, that the four ships involved in the main action were Bismarck, Hood, Prinz Eugen, and Prince of Wales. At the other end of the scale, I don't believe anyone would suggest that there is sufficient historical evidence remaining to determine exactly which gun on Bismarck (if indeed it was just one) fired the fatal shot which caused the explosion of Hood.

In between those extremes, lies a wide variety of observations to which honest and intelligent men can place different degrees of reliability. Associating each of these various elements with various degrees of probability and assembling the results into some reasonable reconstruction of past reality represents -- certainly for the untrained historian, and quite likely for the trained one as well in certain circumstances -- a series of somewhat arbitrary decisions, often individually and collectively of suspect reliability. The result is a collection of alternative reconstructions which may (or again may not) be conducive to accurate reconciliation.

My own outlook tends to be conservative, i.e. my preference in analysis is to omit suspect truths rather than accept potential falsehoods. I thus, after looking at a given collection of information, tend to retain a smaller collection of established 'facts' than others might. In many cases, it's more honest, but certainly much less satisfying, to say "We just don't know..."

Bill Jurens

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by northcape » Sun Nov 04, 2018 6:27 am

To comment on the post of Mr. Jurens above: Yes, I agree 100% but I see a bit more here. It is not only a different view on what is counted as fact and what as assumption. More significantly, model predictions from a theory are turned into facts and then useed to support the theory (e.g. reconstructed=assumed times from an untimed film are used to "prove" other parts of the theory). This circular reasoning is the main problem, and this is why I think that the approach and therefore the result from A&A is not sound. It is one theory among some others, but to state that it closer to the truth than others is simply totally wrong (for reasons outlined hundred times before, e.g. adding/mixing of a lot of uncertain information makes the model more dependent on assumptions, and thus less reliable).

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:51 am

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

I see you opinion and current position about this historical battle re-construction and obviously I respect it.

The only correction/comment I will add is that in the DS battle field surely the warships were 6 and not only 4.

To add the Bismarck and Hood tracks on top of the current available Prinz Eugen and PoW tracks was not so difficult looking at the current information available.

Different has been for the Suffolk and Norfolk, it has required a bit more research and study, but after we have found Capt Ellis autobiography also this one I had already realized myself with the available data went fairly easy too.

The 2 Royal Navy heavy cruisers, the Norfolk and the Suffolk, decided on their own not to participate initially to the engagement, .. just as the Baron very " diplomatically " commented on his book, … confirming Russel Grenfell 1948 evaluations, ... and after Hood exploded they simply anticipated/followed the PoW on her retreat restarting the shadowing from a safer distance.

This is exactly the reason why this battle re-construction became very intriguing to me, because what was written thru the years about this battle was not the truth, but a " sugar coated " version written to justify those " regrettable " events, and now we all know very well why it was done in that way.

I think you will agree that from an historical stand point it is not the first time it was done.
I can share hundred of examples thru the centuries of a similar way to write about historical battles after the real events.
Obviously for an historian like I am it is the most interesting situation you can find to deeply study and write about.

Anyway, my work is available since 2005 and in few years it will be renewed with a lot more information any reader will be able to evaluate and judge on his own, as it must be.

In this regard I am very curios now to see your future book and to read and see what will you publish about it.

I have already pre-ordered it and I whish you the best success about it.


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 )

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by paul.mercer » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:59 am

Bill Jurens wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:28 am
In his post of Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:35 pm, Mr. Mercer made a request that further discussions in response to his initial question be terminated. Insofar as he began the thread, I will respect his (quite reasonable) request, and defer from further commentary.

I might summarize before withdrawal. Without going into great detail, although I do feel that Mr. Bonomi's version of the Denmark Strait action represents a laudable effort certainly worthy of careful consideration, I do not believe that -- at least in the absence of new data -- sufficient evidence remains to allow it, or for that matter any other reconstruction, to be considered other than a fairly close approximation.

In that regard, our differences primarily lie in the degree to which we discriminate between items which lie in the grey areas between observation and supposition. We would all agree, for example, that the four ships involved in the main action were Bismarck, Hood, Prinz Eugen, and Prince of Wales. At the other end of the scale, I don't believe anyone would suggest that there is sufficient historical evidence remaining to determine exactly which gun on Bismarck (if indeed it was just one) fired the fatal shot which caused the explosion of Hood.

In between those extremes, lies a wide variety of observations to which honest and intelligent men can place different degrees of reliability. Associating each of these various elements with various degrees of probability and assembling the results into some reasonable reconstruction of past reality represents -- certainly for the untrained historian, and quite likely for the trained one as well in certain circumstances -- a series of somewhat arbitrary decisions, often individually and collectively of suspect reliability. The result is a collection of alternative reconstructions which may (or again may not) be conducive to accurate reconciliation.

My own outlook tends to be conservative, i.e. my preference in analysis is to omit suspect truths rather than accept potential falsehoods. I thus, after looking at a given collection of information, tend to retain a smaller collection of established 'facts' than others might. In many cases, it's more honest, but certainly much less satisfying, to say "We just don't know..."

Bill Jurens
Thank you Bill,
Let us now hope that we can all terminate this discussion on good terms.

Post Reply