Hits on PoW and Bismarck

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "Your above response is that of a petulant schoolboy. Very disappointing."
Another who can only petulantly and pompously try to teach good manners because simply unable to counter arguments, despite I treated him with some (apparently undeserved) respect after his admission of being wrong.... very disappointing indeed... another (back, in his case) in black list !

If I'm a schoolboy he acts just like a street thug, supporting his boss-denier... :lol:


I wrote (quoted by Wadinga above): " I would prefer to be decorated posthumously for a brave stupidity than to be Court-Martialled and disgraced for an alleged "cowardice".
I do confirm.
Mr.Wadinga, on the other side, apparently prefers cowardice, after having insulted a dead officer viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6323&p=70880&hilit=arbuthnot#p70880. :kaput:



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)
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by northcape »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:41 pm Hello everybody,

the real revelation everybody will easily realize in the Bundesarchiv while managing the Lagemann file will be this one :


Lagemann_file_Schmitz_Westerholt_print.jpg


which is a logic confirmation of the PoW gunnery plot, the Bismarck closure rate with PoW, and as many forum members has already clearly understood will end up just confirming my 2005 map :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81065#p81065

The PG Film started after the 06:03 and the Prinz Eugen torpedo alarm as written into the Kriegsmarine official documents.

Consequently all the contained photos have been taken from 06:03 and 30 seconds, ... and soon after 06:05 battle time.

Bye Antonio
Excuse me, but just for my understanding, and to make it clear for everyone else here: Are you considering a dramatic propaganda painting as a proof / hard evidence for your theory ("logic confirmation*)? I know it says "Foto" on the image, but I guess you understand that this is not (another untimed) photograph, but a painting?

Thanks.

* BTW, what is a "logic confirmation"? I know what a confirmation is (e.g. an uncommented painting is not a confirmation), but what makes a "logic confirmation" differ from a "confirmation" (or maybe from an "unlogic confirmation")? Thanks again.
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Bill Jurens »

Mr. Virtuani wrote:

"Another who can only petulantly and pompously try to teach good manners because simply unable to counter arguments."

I must admit that at this stage, I am no longer sure what the arguments actually ARE.

Certainly the implication that that a painting, apparently made by someone who was not actually on site and probably commissioned as a propaganda piece, could be considered as in some way useful as an objective historical analysis tool, is -- at least in a formal historical sense -- somewhat disconcerting. This would seem to be essentially equivalent to attempting to use the background in a painting of Columbus landing in America to establish the probable landing site...

As an aside, some mileage has been made suggesting that my proposed closure rate calculation is in some way definitive. To push this too far would be misleading. The existing track charts and descriptions of the action suggest that some rate in the vicinity of the figures quoted would be likely, and a good deal might be attributed to the assumption (no more than that) that both parties in the engagement would have found it convenient to maintain a more-or-less constant closure rate in order to maximize the accuracy of their gunfire. It represents an approximation based on somewhat less than complete or ideal data. Even elementary research will soon reveal that discrepancies revolving around comparative track charts are, for better or for worse, more-or-less the rule when track charts developed of various actions that took place during the World Wars are compared after the fact. They do not, and probably cannot, represent what actually occurred, they instead represent some sort of amalgam of what people on-site with limited knowledge of the entire situation THOUGHT had occurred. Insofar as there were few objective and all-seeing observers on-site, the construction of an objective and all-seeing reconstruction based upon their observations is, at best, a somewhat questionable endeavor. Basically, there is a limit beyond which imaginative reconstruction ceases to be useful and can actually be historically counter-productive. Exactly where that limit is, is in most cases a somewhat debatable issue.

In that regard, the Denmark Strait action is (or at least appears to me) to be in no significant way exceptional, nor do these discrepancies likely stem from anything other than observational difficulties and an inability to correctly and accurately reconcile often directly contradictory after-action reports.

Bill Jurens
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Byron Angel »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:43 pm Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "Your above response is that of a petulant schoolboy. Very disappointing."
Another who can only petulantly and pompously try to teach good manners because simply unable to counter arguments, despite I treated him with some (apparently undeserved) respect after his admission of being wrong.... very disappointing indeed... another (back, in his case) in black list !

If I'm a schoolboy he acts just like a street thug, supporting his boss-denier... :lol:
I wrote (quoted by Wadinga above): " I would prefer to be decorated posthumously for a brave stupidity than to be Court-Martialled and disgraced for an alleged "cowardice".
I do confirm.
Mr.Wadinga, on the other side, apparently prefers cowardice, after having insulted a dead officer viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6323&p=70880&hilit=arbuthnot#p70880. :kaput:


Bye, Alberto

So ... it seems that, going forward, I must expect to read more of the same. Sad.
Recommendation: if and when your efforts do go to press, you might consider removing those emojis.

B
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "you might consider removing those emojis."
Mr.Angel will be satisfied. In the meantime he can remove his professor-tone and counter evidences, not manners, as everybody seems willing to do here, when without arguments re. FACTS or simply here to defend the "honor" of a couple timid officers (while insulting other officers).


Bill Jurens wrote: "some mileage has been made suggesting that my proposed closure rate calculation is in some way definitive"
I agree it cannot be definitive at the single yard. However,as you said "From 0555-0603 the range rate seems to have dropped at a fairly steady rate of about -900 meters per minute" viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=135#p80975.

This conclusion is definitive, because it is proven by the PoW salvo plot http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVa.gif that can contain some approximation but gives the closing rate.

Don't you agree anymore with what you wrote above ? What else can explain such a reduction in distance else than a very converging course ? As PoW was on 280°, this implies Bismarck was on around 220° (30 knots relative closing speed), am I missing something ?


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:58 pm, edited 5 times 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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

you wrote :
Certainly the implication that that a painting, apparently made by someone who was not actually on site and probably commissioned as a propaganda piece, could be considered as in some way useful as an objective historical analysis tool, is -- at least in a formal historical sense -- somewhat disconcerting. This would seem to be essentially equivalent to attempting to use the background in a painting of Columbus landing in America to establish the probable landing site..
I think you need to realize that Julius Caesar Schmitz-Westerholt was a Propaganda Kompanie Kriegsmahler ( War Artist - Painter ) on board the Prinz Eugen during the battle exactly like Fritz Otto Busch ( Kriegsmarine Magazine Director ) and Josef Lagemann ( Propaganda Kompanie photographer ).

Jose' Rico just posted something useful for you to read and realize better, … because there is a lot behind it that you apparently do not know at all.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8336#p81113

You do not know J.C. Schmitz-Westerholt, … you do not know this publication and from where it was taken, … and most likely you do not know the story of that paint he made in oil after having realized that carbon sketch on board the Prinz Eugen that is available on the BUndesarchiv into the Lagemann file.

J.C. Schmitz-Westerholt made the carbon sketch live during the battle, … if you read Fritz Otto Busch book of 1943.


A carbon sketch and/or an oil paint, ... can become more important than a photo, ... or a released account 50 years after, ... because it was done live on board the warship, ... :wink:

https://plus.google.com/photos/11621986 ... 9583136546

https://get.google.com/albumarchive/116 ... source=pwa


You better be informed about it if you like to know the truth :

http://www.rothenburg-unterm-hakenkreuz ... auen-auch/

Zu den Kriegsmalern gehörten u. a. Otto Kokoschka, Wilhelm Richter, Herbert Agricola, Julius C. Schmitz-Westerholt.
NOTE : J. Schmitz on Jose' Rico recent publication link, … is Julius Caesar Schmitz-Westerholt.
Those are just 2 different ways to call the same person, … even if he preferred to be simply called : Julius Schmitz.


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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

for your information :

From F.O. Busch :
Since I did not see the explosion of our first opponent myself, because of the ordered target change, I asked the comrades after the battle who had been eye witnesses of this brief event. It was our artist, our painter and specialist who was able to describe the scene most effectively:
[Julius C. Schmitz-Westerholt was a Leutnant (S), (S = Sonderführer = specialist). See: article and watercolors in “Signal” No. 17, 1941. It is posted at www.Kbismarck.com]. [There is also a post-war account of this in: The Story of the Prince Eugen, pp. 43-44, Fritz Otto Busch, Robert Hale Ltd., London, 1960]

From J.C. Schmitz-Westerholt directly :
“ When the alarm came, I was obviously asleep. After all, it was only about 0430 AM. Because of the constant air raid alarms, I expected that we would be awakened by an alarm. Anyway, I wake up promptly during every change in course or speed. I had worked hard on my sketches and I was dead-tired, and I must have slept like a log. I race topsides, obviously still a little dopey, to the starboard boat deck, past the 10.5 cm Flak, and then across from behind the catapult to the portside. I see the smoke clouds on port, and I run back and plow up to the bridge and up the fighting top mast to the admiral’s bridge. I did have a cabin there at one time, and I knew that I would have the best view from the signal bridge for preparing my sketches. Furthermore, I had my Leica around my neck, but I did not get a chance to take any pictures during the battle. I had to pay too much attention to the events, to remember the colors, the shapes and everything else, everything that one may need later on, in order to reproduce a picture of such a sea battle correctly and flawlessly. My school buddy and friend, the senior air force lieutenant, was already up there. We always called him the “Flying Master” [in English here], captain knows! ”

From F. O. Busch again :
We all had a similar feeling, when these ship came toward us with point blank abandon, a typical English habit of underestimating the opponent! And then “Bismarck” fires, and the painter runs across to the starboard bridge wing, because the battleship is in a slight starboard staggered position in relation to “Prinz Eugen”. He [the painter] watches the unfolding picture of power that our flagship projects: clad in giant clouds of powder vapors which rapidly swirl aft because of flank speed, its barrels directed toward the enemy, the rangefinders and the entire superstructure illuminated by the fiery bright firing flashes. One, two salvoes burst away, then the specialist [painter] hurries back to capture a view of the impacts at the enemy.

Taken from pages 159 and 160 from this 1943 book :

The Battle in the Denmark Strait

[ from: Prinz Eugen im ersten Gefecht (Prinz Eugen in her first Battle), Fritz Otto Busch, pages 108-179. Verlag C. Bertelsmann, Gütersloh, Germany, 1st edition, 1943]

[Rough draft. Translation and annotations [ ] by Ulrich Rudofsky, October 2003]

Now you should have realized who PK ( Kriegsmahler ) J.C. Schmitz_Westerholt was, … and here from where he took his battle sketches …

PG_Schmitz-Westerholt_position_01.JPG
PG_Schmitz-Westerholt_position_01.JPG (119.29 KiB) Viewed 2589 times

… a pretty well choosen position, ... up there on the Prinz Eugen signal bridge.


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: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by wadinga »

Hello All,

Once again judicious editing of a witness' words in order to perpetrate a distorted view of occurrences:
One, two salvoes burst away, then the specialist [painter] hurries back to capture a view of the impacts at the enemy.
The next sentence refers to Prinz Eugen's first salvo occurring after Bismarck has fired two. Another redaction deliberately perpetrated.

And yet still no confirmation (or denial) of
Eine der letzten Granaten der "Hood", die über Prinz Eugen hinwegheulend als Weitschüsse in die See fuhren. Im Hintergrund Bismarck.
Foto Lagemann
as the original 1941 caption to the photo. Based on truncating the Josef Schmitz quote to deliberately change the evidence one can only be suspicious...……………...
and
Don't you agree anymore with what you wrote above ? What else can explain such a reduction in distance else than a very converging course ? As PoW was on 280°, this implies Bismarck was on around 220° (30 knots relative closing speed), am I missing something ?
How is the rate calculated? Which shots fired at what range hit? PoW's closing rates were 774 yds per minute based on her course, speed and target angle alone before the turn and 542 yds per minute once she had changed course. What Bismarck's course, speed and target angle contributed depend on those values which are unknown and can only be approximately derived if one knew the actual ranges at which shells hit. Which we don't.

Paintings from impossible points of view as evidence? Even more unreliable than guessing enemy courses from the unknown ranges at which shells hit. I've got a picture of a painting of the "Angel of Mons" guarding British soldiers in the First World War, so that proves there really were angels on the battlefield.


As for Arbuthnot I'll bet the first thing he said to all his dead crewmen on arrival at the Pearly Gates was: "Sorry chaps, that was indeed Bloody Stupid, Clumsy and Pointless. But look on the bright side, I'm dead too!"


All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by northcape »

Now let's summarize in 3 steps:

1) We have a theory (aka battlemap) based on tons of uncertain infomation. The authors believe if they add more and more uncertain information, that the significance of the theory is strengthened while in fact it is weakened (real world: multiplication of partly interdependent probabilities; author's assumptions: addition of probabilities)

2) Central pieces of the evidences which lead to the theory are an untimed film of unknown speed and many untimed fotos. In the end, the reconstructed timing of the film/fotos (note that this reconstruction is part of the theory) is used to verify the theory. This is a circular reference, or in electrical engineering, simply a short-circuit (and we know what happens after a short-circuit).

3) Finally a propaganda painting is used as another proof for the theory, because it is considered more significant/thruthful than a foto since, in contrast to the foto, "the painting was done live".

Initally I did not really care about the background of all this arguing on the DS battle, due to its obvious insignificance to maritime/war history. But now you get me really curious about your planned publication. If this title would not have been used already for another book, I would suggest to name it "Mountains of Madness".
Algonquin-R17
Junior Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:40 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Algonquin-R17 »

Hello Antonio,

I do not have the anywhere near the same level of knowledge about this battle as the other forum members have, no doubt about that. I clearly state it. However sometimes that is an advantage to me because I judge the various points and arguments raised by the members as they appear and can observe it more objectively. I have no preconceived judgement. If I recognize a point of argument made that I personally feel is significant I wait for the counter point or counter argument to dispute or cancel that point, then I move forward. When that point is not addressed to me it raises a " red flag. " In other words I wonder why it has not been countered. This is an example of what I mean to say.

" Hello Antonio,

I asked, in a very respectful way, if you, who have been to the Bundesarchiv and physically handled the material would confirm whether
Eine der letzten Granaten der "Hood", die über Prinz Eugen hinwegheulend als Weitschüsse in die See fuhren. Im Hintergrund Bismarck.
Foto Lagemann
is written on or with the photograph Bild 146-1968-015-012.


A very simple question and one which does not require you to disown your opinions. You could quite easily confirm whether this wording is on the photographs themselves and still steadfastly maintain that whoever wrote it was incorrect.


You have instead reproduced both the 10A and 12 suffix photographs with the text described as being found on or with the photographs. Once again you have merely re-iterated your explanation/conclusion/assertion;
both captions are surely wrong mentioning the Hood and needs to be changed to PoW, despite who wrote anything anywhere.

You have suggested that this matter was "solved" some years ago, but it has not been. Merely insisting that because you believe the film showing the same events happened at a particular clock time time, that means these photos happened at that same clock time, is a circular argument.


Alberto has challenged to provide me Lagemann's signature to the description
Eine der letzten Granaten der "Hood", die über Prinz Eugen hinwegheulend als Weitschüsse in die See fuhren. Im Hintergrund Bismarck.
Foto Lagemann
You know whether it is there or not. Why not be straightforward and say so? Do you prefer to discuss this on the ancient thread you have re-animated?

All the best

wadinga "


If you have the time to address it I would appreciate it.

Thank you,

Bob
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,

again Mr.Wadinga is showing his geometry problems....
Wadinga wrote: "PoW's closing rates were 774 yds per minute based on her course, speed and target angle alone before the turn and 542 yds per minute once she had changed course."
Based on what ? :kaput: The closing rate depends on Bismarck course too, not only on PoW course... :lol:

A ship on course 280° and a ship on course 220°, with relative bearing of 335°-330° (from PoW to Bismarck) or 155°-150° (from Bismarck to PoW) (as PoW and Bismarck between 5:56:10 and 6:00:10), both at 30 knots (to make things simpler) close their distance by 30 sm per hour (it's evident just drawing both courses and seeing the almost equilateral triangle formed by the courses and the distances between the ships).

This means the closure rate is around 920 meters per minute, as per Mr.Jurens estimation (www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 135#p80975), not surely the ridiculous 774 or 542 yards per minute :lol: .

This result is in line with PoW salvo plot and thus it is proven that Bismarck course was around 220° when Hood was afloat. Surely not the fantasy 270° that Mr.Wadinga would like to see.... :kaput:


A suggestion for this guy: please study a bit before posting nonsense and let more knowledgeable people answer to questions raised to them, instead of petulantly jump in just to show mathematical ignorance.


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)
HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by HMSVF »

wadinga wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:42 am Hello All,

Once again judicious editing of a witness' words in order to perpetrate a distorted view of occurrences:
One, two salvoes burst away, then the specialist [painter] hurries back to capture a view of the impacts at the enemy.
The next sentence refers to Prinz Eugen's first salvo occurring after Bismarck has fired two. Another redaction deliberately perpetrated.

And yet still no confirmation (or denial) of
Eine der letzten Granaten der "Hood", die über Prinz Eugen hinwegheulend als Weitschüsse in die See fuhren. Im Hintergrund Bismarck.
Foto Lagemann
as the original 1941 caption to the photo. Based on truncating the Josef Schmitz quote to deliberately change the evidence one can only be suspicious...……………...
and
Don't you agree anymore with what you wrote above ? What else can explain such a reduction in distance else than a very converging course ? As PoW was on 280°, this implies Bismarck was on around 220° (30 knots relative closing speed), am I missing something ?
How is the rate calculated? Which shots fired at what range hit? PoW's closing rates were 774 yds per minute based on her course, speed and target angle alone before the turn and 542 yds per minute once she had changed course. What Bismarck's course, speed and target angle contributed depend on those values which are unknown and can only be approximately derived if one knew the actual ranges at which shells hit. Which we don't.

Paintings from impossible points of view as evidence? Even more unreliable than guessing enemy courses from the unknown ranges at which shells hit. I've got a picture of a painting of the "Angel of Mons" guarding British soldiers in the First World War, so that proves there really were angels on the battlefield.


As for Arbuthnot I'll bet the first thing he said to all his dead crewmen on arrival at the Pearly Gates was: "Sorry chaps, that was indeed Bloody Stupid, Clumsy and Pointless. But look on the bright side, I'm dead too!"


All the best

wadinga
Pretty much gaurentee Arbuthnot wouldn’t have said that! He would have donned his boxing gloves and ordered the other 900 crew to box him 1 at a time to punish them 1 at a time for his failure! He was a real hardnut in the truest sense of the word and tbh probably nuts full stop. He was an “interesting” character. What he did prove was that Nelson dictum that no captain can do no wrong if he fights against an enemy had no place in the 20th century.

Almost collided with HMS Lion,obscured the targets for the British line,lost his flagship and entire crew and almost HMS Warrior to a similar immolation (had it not been for HMS Warspites cussed steering issues).

In regards to the topic. Well I’m still no clearer. Doesn’t this all rely on a battle map that Mr J said would be impossible to construct with accuracy?


Keep reading though!
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

it all depends on the level of accuracy one is pretending, ... or the tolerances one can accept, ... like for every other battle map on the sea and on the ground, ... studied at any military school.

Somebody already has re-constructed this battle in a fairly accurate way like was never done before :

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

this does not mean that in the close future something even better and more accurate can be realized and published.

It all depends on the researches one is able to perform, on the time spent on it,on the key documents of all type one can put his hands on.

Surely knowing the presence of the Propaganda Kompanie persons on board the Prinz Eugen is one of the knowledge factors that helps you knowing more about this battle, ... like having interviewed key battle witnesses when they were still alive and having made the right questions to them, ... the ones where they can really provide their unique value add having been there on that moment, ... and having lived their part of this battle that is like a puzzle, ... you need to know and put together many pieces, ... many, in order to realize the full scenario.

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: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Since:
Surely knowing the presence of the Propaganda Kompanie persons on board the Prinz Eugen is one of the knowledge factors that helps you knowing more about this battle, ... like having interviewed key battle witnesses when they were still alive and having made the right questions to them, ... the ones where they can really provide their unique value add having been there on that moment, ... and having lived their part of this battle that is like a puzzle, ... you need to know and put together many pieces, ... many, in order to realize the full scenario.
So tell us whether:

Eine der letzten Granaten der "Hood", die über Prinz Eugen hinwegheulend als Weitschüsse in die See fuhren. Im Hintergrund Bismarck.
Foto Lagemann
is on or with the Bundesarchiv copy of the photo. Or not.

What's the problem? If you simply can't remember or didn't note it when you personally handled the material, well just say so, you're not infallible. No, honestly, you're not infallible. Or is it that you don't want them to "provide their unique value add having been there on that moment" because their "key battle witness" evidence denies your fabricated timetable?

Even when you quote Busch:
We all had a similar feeling, when these ship came toward us with point blank abandon, a typical English habit of underestimating the opponent! And then “Bismarck” fires, and the painter runs across to the starboard bridge wing, because the battleship is in a slight starboard staggered position in relation to “Prinz Eugen”.
But if you believe the so-called "first salvo" photo, Bild 146-1968-015-24, Bismarck is not at all in a "slight starboard staggered position" but thousands of metres dead astern at first salvo.


Despite the Bundesarchiv original caption

Seegefecht des Schlachtschiffes "Bismark" unter Island. Schlachtschiff "Bismark" feuert seine erste Voll-Salve auf Hood.
Bildberichter: Lagemann
This picture has problems being integrated with the others or Busch's description. BTW has Lagemann forgotten how to spell Bismarck?

For Alberto: As with all maths problems, "read the question carefully before leaping to an answer". I said those were the closing rate element solely for PoW alone, based on her course, speed and target angle only. You have assumed you already know the other half of the equation, ie the Bismarck contribution to closure. If fact this is the "unknown" you are supposed to be solving for. The information required to do this would be some accurate, timed evidence of distance. We don't have this. We have guesswork, based on imagining which shots of which salvoes actually hit Bismarck, and how far those shots varied from the nominal gun range, entered in the salvo plot.

BTW Approximating 30 knots for both ships is sloppy. 28 kts max for PoW and ? for Bismarck. No wonder Bill Jurens says such precision is unachievable.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "You have assumed you already know the other half of the equation, ie the Bismarck contribution to closure."
I stand corrected. I had not understood the convoluted and reticent way of determining the closure rate used by Mr.Wadinga only to avoid to admit he was wrong (and, I add, I have not understood it yet: closure to what ? a fixed point ? where ?) :lol:

However, I'm waiting now for him to complete his work and to calculate the overall closure rate assuming Bismarck on 220° (as we say she was) or on 270° (as he pretends she was): who is right and who is (blatantly) wrong ? :lol:

The answer has already been given by everybody here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=930#p80769, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=135#p80975, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=150#p80997....

Bismarck was closing to PoW in such a rapid way that even with her on a course around 220° we need to adjust something to cope with the irrefutable data coming from PoW salvo plot (almost 5000 yards closing rate in 4 minutes, 900+meters per minute). No way she was on a more westerly course, thus no way the PG film could have been taken before Hood explosion, thus no way the shells we see in the film are from....Hood. :stop:



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)
Post Reply