Hits on PoW and Bismarck

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1864
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by wadinga » Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:17 pm

Hello Alberto,
I stand corrected. I had not understood the convoluted and reticent way of determining the closure rate used by Mr.Wadinga
That is because you have lost track of the difference between things which have strong evidence of truth, like PoW's recorded speed, course and target angle, and things which are entirely imagined, like Bismarck's course, speed and target angle at the same moments. You have got so used to imagining things and then calling them real or facts, you can't tell the difference any more.

There is nothing convoluted about separating the real and the imagined. We could indeed create a plethora of imagined combined closing rates based on different Bismarck courses, and based on a further unwarranted assumption that unlike PoW she did not change course during the engagement up until sometime after 06:00.

However since even McMullen did not even know for sure which salvoes hit and therefore at what approximate ranges, how could we know better than him? We could estimate if we had accurate timings from the German side, but...………...we don't.
The true range on opening was 25,000 yards. The true range on ceasing fire was 14,500 yards.
No hits were observed, but it is likely from results observed that fire was effective between salvoes 5 and 16.
Therefore we have no ranges with which to draw Bismarck's postulated course.


We have a further witness to Bismarck turning away- Rowell. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8249&start=30In his letter (I published unredacted on this site) to Bellairs he says:
Bismarck opened fire half a minute after the Prince of Wales, before doing so turning to open her "A" arcs.

Direct eye-witness evidence Bismarck turned away, long before Hood was sunk. That there was an assumption Bismarck needed to open her A arcs is possibly wrong. The motive does not matter, the turn is seen and recorded.


All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3438
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:29 pm

Hello everybody,

I'm afraid that this denier is playing his game with all us. Who said he deserves more politeness should explain him that he is saying just nonsense...
Wadinga wrote: " We could indeed create a plethora of imagined combined closing rates"
Please, Mr.Wadinga, no plethora is needed, be so kind to create just 2 scenarios: Bismarck on course 220° (as she was) and on course 270° (as you pretend she was), to clearly see that one is wrong and one is right. Guess which one? Mathematics cannot be denied and the PoW salvo plot is an irrefutable evidence. Sorry for the ones who prefer to trust the fairy-tale. :negative:

On course 220° Bismarck closes dramatically the range to PoW, on course 270° she almost don't close it. It's not difficult... :stubborn:

Is this guy really unable to see that what he imagined is simply mathematically impossible ? Can he read what Mr.Jurens said viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=135#p80975 and deduct a logical conclusion ? Can someone among the ones annoyed by my rudeness with him explain to this stubborn denier why he is saying a nonsense puntting Bismarck on a more westerly course than around 220° ?


Bye, Alberto

P.S. A turn to 270° would have slightly closed the arcs (from around 20° from forward the beam to 30° aft) not opened... :lol:
"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: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:16 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

I sincerely wish you a better luck compared to what I have got in the same situation regarding the Norfolk track and bearings that still wait an answer since several months :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231&p=79492#p79492

It seems to me that base mathematics and geometry knowledge, … the trigonometry. ... are not so well realized by those persons.

If you need to explain that sailing a course on true bearing 220° firing at a target on true bearing 150° you have your main turrets 20° forward the beam, …

Course_220_target_150.jpg
Course_220_target_150.jpg (51.69 KiB) Viewed 1817 times

… and turning 50° to starboard, … now on course 270°, … your main turrets will go from 20° forward the beam to 30° aft the beam, … moving of course 50° backwards, …

Course_270_target_150.jpg
Course_270_target_150.jpg (43.48 KiB) Viewed 1817 times

... as it is more than obvious with the target on the same position and bearing, … then I am not surprised to read what I am reading here in lately.

How can we pretend to have them realizing what the PG Film and photos are showing us, … if they do not understand this very simple concept.

It looks a pure waste of time in my opinion, …

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: 1864
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by wadinga » Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:56 pm

Hello Alberto,

Again you are muddling matters in your mind. Reality and the things you have invented are hopelessly mixed up.
(as you pretend she was), to clearly see that one is wrong and one is right.
It is Mullheim-Rechberg and Schmalenbach who were at Denmark Straits who say it, not me :angel: I am not pretending anything, I merely think they are more likely to be right than you. I am happy to imagine a turn of less than 50 degrees say 20, 30 or 40, much as seen by Rowell and Lagemann, and thus creating the divergence seen in the film, and recorded by these others.


If Bismarck had her opponent 20 degrees before her port beam, she wasn't
Bismarck was closing to PoW in such a rapid way that even with her on a course around 220°
On course 220° Bismarck closes dramatically the range to PoW


Her contribution to the combined closing rate was relatively small and easily negated by a small turn to starboard.

Thanks for explaining the compass to me.
The ship's command attention was primarily focused on the ships that were rapidly approaching from abaft on the port side.
This is from Schmalenbach's report on page 44 of the PG KTB. Where on the Gefechtskizze are the bearings to the British ships ever abaft the port beam? They are still on an ahead bearing at 06:03. No wonder this map was described as "useless and worthless". Or have we already proved Schmalenbach doesn't understand the compass?

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3438
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:56 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: ".... I merely think they are more likely to be right than you."
...but a simple calculation of the closing rate will PROVE the Baron was wrong changing his 1980 map... It's geometry, not me !.
Why the Baron did it, is a puzzle, as the error is evident to everybody, except Mr.Wadinga.

Wadinga wrote: "....I am happy to imagine a turn of less than 50 degrees say 20, 30 or 40..."
...he may be very, very happy, but, inconveniently for him, any course different from 270° would not match what we see in the film. In most of the film, PG and BS are on a perfect parallel course (as demonstrated by the analysis of the film pics posted by Antonio here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335#p81065 :clap: ...no answer to this precise work...of course...). As PG was on 270° (as per her battlemap), BS was on AROUND 270° as well... again it's simple, but Mr.Wadinga refuses to accept the reality.

Wadinga wrote (my in brackets): "Her (Bismarck) contribution to the combined closing rate was relatively small"
:shock: ... pitiable, it would not be worth a comment..... :lol:
Of course it was BC1 who decided to "close the range", sailing at the enemy; however, if this same enemy sails away on a parallel course, there can be no closure anyway, despite BC1 intentions...
From 5:56 on, with BS on 220°, the range was closing quickly (around 30 knots relative speed), with BS on 270° PoW would almost have not closed range at all (with BS on 280°, NOT a single yard closure, as even Mr.Wadinga should be able to see).... Unfortunately for him, 220° is the extreme westerly course to explain such a range reduction, any more westerly course will fail, and (unfortunately for all deniers) the PoW salvo plot is an irrefutable evidence (at least if McMullen was sober and firing at the enemy, not shelling the water). :kaput:


Definitely, Mr.Wadinga has huge problems with geometry but what is worse is that he is too lazy to build a battlemap himself tracing the courses of the ships and checking his nonsense... :lol:
However, he should at least listen to someone more knowledgeable than himself, who gave him the rate of closure viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=135#p80975, rubbishing his fantasy turn away at 5:55, but apparently he is too arrogant to admit his defeat and still nobody (from his side) is willing to help me in the titanic effort to open his eyes to reality....


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: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Oct 30, 2018 9:23 pm

Alberto wrote:

"Definitely, Mr.Wadinga ... should at least listen to someone more knowledgeable than himself, who gave him the rate of closure viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=135#p80975, rubbishing his fantasy turn away at 5:55..."

Please be careful not to quote me out of context.

What I actually wrote was: “For what it's worth... From 0555-0603 the range rate seems to have dropped at a fairly steady rate of about -900 meters per minute.”

The operative phrases here – underlined, by myself for emphasis – indicated not that I ‘gave’ anyone a rate of closure, just that I suggested figures that seemed plausible based upon my reconstructions. When I am certain about something, I will say so without qualification. Equally, when I am unsure about something, I will add qualifications, which should not be omitted or de-emphasized.

The quote: “However, he [Wadinga] should at least listen to someone more knowledgeable than himself [i.e. me]...” represents, I would suggest, overstatement at best, probably appropriate with regard to some issues, less appropriate with regard to others.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3438
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:30 pm

Bill Jurens wrote: "Please be careful not to quote me out of context...I suggested figures that seemed plausible based upon my reconstructions...qualifications, which should not be omitted or de-emphasized."
Hi Mr.Jurens,
I beg your pardon for my over-simplification. Thanks for correcting me.


Therefore, I should have just said to Mr.Wadinga to listen at someone (IMO more knowledgeable than him) stating that "For what it's worth... From 0555-0603 the range rate seems to have dropped at a fairly steady rate of about -900 meters per minute".

Of course, this rubbishes his invented "PoW-only-based-closure-rate-vs-we-don't-know-what" of 774 - 542 yards/minute :?: , it means a relative closing speed of 30 knots between the two ships and, as a geometrical consequence, a course of Bismarck of around 220° (not more westerly), being PoW on 280°course on relative bearing varying from 155°to 150°.


I hope now Mr.Wadinga will listen at you and will understand how his "fantasy turn away" of Bismarck before Hood explosion is simply a NONSENSE.
I also hope Mr.Wadinga will now ask you directly to explain him the reasons of your statement and to clarify his doubts regarding the range closure rate, if still any, because I'm possibly not good enough at explaining my reasoning to him. :think:


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: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Bill Jurens » Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:41 am

Bismarck's track charts of the Denmark Strait action have, of course, not survived. Nor has that of Hood. The Prinz Eugen and Prince of Wales have survived, and probably serve as the best overall references. In general, should discrepancies appear, it would seem reasonable to assume that the POW track chart is the more reliable of these regarding British movements, and the PE track chart is the more reliable of these regarding German movements. In general, with regard to both track charts, overall depictions might be expected to be more reliable than individual details.

The Prinz Eugen track chart quite clearly shows a German overall course line, less some apparent maneuvering which took place after Hood exploded, of 220 degrees. The PE track chart in this area, i.e. the area where the maneuvering occurs, would appear -- as might be expected -- to be somewhat schematic in nature and, if taken at face value, shows the ship actually accelerating from about 24 knots to around 30 knots during the period from c. 0604 through c. 0608 whilst the maneuvering was taking place. Acceleration during a turning phase, though not out of the question, insofar as the ship was potentially capable of 32 knots, would seem unlikely, and the engineering log does indicate that the ship was ordered to a speed of 32 knots around 0610, which would be, of course, some time after the main action was over. (Insofar as the engineering log, which apparently survives only in the form of a graph, indicates instananeous changes of speed, it is likely that it records not actual speeds through the water but the times at which speed changes were ordered from the bridge.)

The fact that the the track chart shows a mean speed of around 26.5 knots during the period of approach, compared to about 27 knots as shown in the Prinz Eugen engineering log, represents a discrepancy in the vicinity of 2%. This implies, but only implies, that the speeds scaled from the track chart during other phases of the action might be assumed to be reasonably close as well. Again, taken at face value, that means that the speeds during the period of heavy maneuvering commencing around 0604 not only increased during the turns, but that according to the engineering log they actually increased prior to the request for full speed, which occurred around 0610.

This would seem to support a conclusion that at least the speeds of Prinz Eugen, and perhaps the courses as well, are problematical during the period of heavy maneuvering. This in turn (no pun intended) suggests that if we don’t really know where Prinz Eugen was during this period, we have relatively little reliable information, at least in great detail, as to where Bismarck might have been either.

In that regard, I remain a bit uncertain regarding Mr. Virtuani’s comment suggesting that Wadinga’s "fantasy turn away" of Bismarck before Hood explosion is simply a NONSENSE.”
This might well be the case, but in order to take any firm stand on the issue, I would like to gather more information with regard to exactly what sort of ‘fantasy turn’ Wadinga is proposing, and why. Trying to wade through several thousand (often rather belligerent and rambling) memos on this thread is beyond both my strength and interest, but should Wandinga be willing to summarize his hypothesis in brief and coherent form -- which I am sure he is fully capable of doing – I would be glad to offer my opinion on his ideas.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3438
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:46 am

@Bill Jurens:

Many thanks for the explanation of the reasoning that drove you to your conclusions: I hope I can summarize correctly in this way:
"...it would seem reasonable to assume that the POW track chart is the more reliable of these regarding British movements, and the PE track chart is the more reliable of these regarding German movements....The Prinz Eugen track chart quite clearly shows a German overall course line, less some apparent maneuvering which took place after Hood exploded, of 220 degrees."
I totally agree with the above. The first statement is exactly the starting point used by Antonio Bonomi to build his battlemap and the second is what we are hot-debating since weeks on this very thread.

I just remark that, despite your doubts about the "evading maneuvers" of PG, we have a good confirmation they happened at the track drawn times in the PG KTB, where the torpedo alarms are registered at 6:03, 6:06, 6:07 and 6:14 with a good match to what we see in her own track chart.


Bill Jurens wrote: "I would like to gather more information with regard to exactly what sort of ‘fantasy turn’ Wadinga is proposing, and why. "
Everybody would like... I have asked the same several times, we are waiting since months for a proposal coming from this guy. I hope your request will have a better success, forcing him to draw a proposed Bismarck course himself.
Mr.Wadinga is just denying evidences, sometimes proposing the usage of old (mathematically and geometrically proven) wrong battlemaps or insisting on "captions" :shock: ; he is however totally unable to show his own alternative German ships course, respecting the evidences (like the PG battlemap and the PoW salvo plot), because his denial is only motivated by his agenda to avoid to admit that the film was taken after 6:03, thus questioning the Bismarck RoF vs.PoW (and consequently the conclusions of Adm.Santarini and myself regarding PoW gunnery performance). :kaput:


For sure, until Hood explosion, there is nothing pointing to a turn away of Bismarck, and the PoW salvo plot irrefutable range closure proves that Bismarck never sailed significantly more westerly than 220°until 6:00:xx.



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: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Bill Jurens » Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:05 pm

Before casting judgement, if indeed we can, let us wait until Wandinga has an opportunity to present his arguments and evidence, if indeed they are as you purport them to be.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I find your statement "PoW salvo plot irrefutable range closure proves that Bismarck never sailed significantly more westerly than 220°until 6:00:xx." to be somewhat questionable. On what basis might you consider the PoW salvo plot "irrefutable", and that this "proves" -- your word, not mine -- that Bismarck held a steady course?

It's possible, isn't it, that the PoW salvo plot is incorrect? In the absence of overwhelming corroborative evidence suggesting that it IS correct, I think it's stretching things a bit to claim that the salvo plot, in any formal sense, 'proves' anything. Indeed, there may be some corroborative evidence supporting the plot, and there may not, but to suggest this document in and of itself 'proves' anything is, I think, unjustifiable. To say it's 'irrefutable' falls on similar ground; might not a hitherto unknown or unexplored document, e.g. a copy of the actual range rate plot, etc. from the PoW plotting room, should it show something different, not at the very least cloud the evidential waters a bit?

Sometimes, by overstating one's case, one can actually diminish its perceived credibility.

Bill Jurens

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 » Thu Nov 01, 2018 10:05 am

Hello everybody,

the fact that the Bismarck coud have sailed only an around 220° course from 05:55 until 06:03 and the Prinz Eugen torpedo alarm ( so not only until 06:00 and the Hood explosion ) is mentioned and demonstrated well enough ( always with due tolerances and approximation ) by several inputs we can put together, and I did it already before publishing my 2005 battle map.

I will not go into their full details once again, since they have been largely discussed during the last 15 years, but it is useful to remind them in a summary :

1) The statements that the German division was fighting " in line of battle - keel line - Kiellinie " with the battleship following the heavy cruiser until they turned away.
The Prinz Eugen battle map clearly shows a course of 220° from 05:55 until 06:03 and 40 seconds, when also PG turned 50° to starboard due to her own issued first torpedo alarm.

German_documents_Kiellinie_01.jpg
German_documents_Kiellinie_01.jpg (52.39 KiB) Viewed 1586 times

2) The German witnesses account confirmations I have collected, the Schmitz-Westerholt carbon sketch, Busch 1943 book input, Schmalenbach 1978 map made after having seen the PG map and the film.
Those are all inputs that are positioning the Bismarck following " in line of battle - keel line - kiellinie " the Prinz Eugen on her course of 220°, just back on her starboard side until the PG torpedo alarm.

Kiellinie_translation_English_In_line_ahead.jpg
Kiellinie_translation_English_In_line_ahead.jpg (39.89 KiB) Viewed 1586 times

3) The Bismarck closure rate on Prinz Eugen from the photo NH 69722 until photo NH 69728 and the PG film starting after 06:03 and the PG first turn as showed into her own battle map. The PG first torpedo alarm is listed on the PG KTB having occurred at 06:03.

4) The Prince of Wales salvo plot and her other maps, showing a Bismarck course that goes from an around 210° to an around 230° in fragmented lines. The average point to point course resulting to be an around 220° course.

5) Leach and Wake-Walker statements about the Bismarck main course ( WW report ) and the Bismarck turn away time ( Leach report ).

Those are the main ones, … and there are other minor ones, … not less important of course, ... supporting a course of the Bismarck from 05:55 until 06:03 of an around 220° degrees course following the Prinz Eugen on her aft starboard side.

I see no room here above to take in any serious consideration a Bismarck course of 270° in that timeframe, ... between 05:55 and 06:03, ... while the Prinz Eugen was sailing a 220° course as we all know with Bismarck in " Kiellinie " behind her.

But I agree with you when you state :
Before casting judgement, if indeed we can, let us wait until Wadinga has an opportunity to present his arguments and evidence, if indeed they are as you purport them to be.

Meanwhile we have presented our arguments and evidence here above.

The same goes for the Norfolk and Suffolk tracks positioning due to their bearings in relation to the enemy and the BC1 warships thru the battle, ... but we are waiting since months now about this " arguments and evidence presentation ", ... to counter what has been presented supported by the available evidence we do have presented already as well.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231&p=79492#p79492

But we have waited unsuccesfully so far, ... as everybody can read, ... :think:

But we can wait patiently some more time now, ... while our arguments and evidence are already out there in both cases, ... :wink:

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: 1864
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by wadinga » Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:16 pm

Hello Bill Jurens

Firstly, may I say I am deeply honoured...……and you are too modest.

The quote: “However, he [Wadinga] should at least listen to someone more knowledgeable than himself [i.e. me]...” represents, I would suggest, overstatement at best, probably appropriate with regard to some issues, less appropriate with regard to others.


Often those who claim to be vastly more knowledgeable than others are found wanting. Your work in Warship International, on the Mearns expedition and elsewhere are strong testament for your capabilities.

My motive for not providing an alternative map has been impugned, but whilst partly because I lack the computer skills it mainly because, as has been suggested, by many independent parties there is insufficient reliable information to do so. Certainly too little to create the second by second, metre by metre resolution verisimilitude claimed by A & A. The whole reason for creating this scenario from so little reliable evidence is solely to float contentious assertions.

Could I take small issue with the suggestion that:
Bismarck's track charts of the Denmark Strait action have, of course, not survived. Nor has that of Hood. The Prinz Eugen and Prince of Wales have survived, and probably serve as the best overall references.

The first two sentences yes.

My understanding is that PoW's action chart, generated at the time by the ARL automatic plotter was destroyed by blood and debris and those documents we have today are illustrative replacements. There are hand-drawn pencil recreations on tracing paper, available at the PRO in Kew, but like your observations on the gefechtsskizze it is "somewhat schematic in nature". The plotter would have taken input from gyro and speed log whereas these are hand drawn replacements made some time after with ruler and French Curves created from the most basic recorded information. Assumed speeds ie not allowing for lost speed through the water due to extreme manoeuvring and base course ordered, rather than what the helmsman actually achieved. From this the "Enclosure to PoW's report dated 4th June" was made. Subsequently two months later for the Hood enquiry the salvo plot was created. Notably the latter fails to show the hard turn to starboard to avoid Hood's wreck, witnessed by both British and distant German observers and thus more extreme than the slight turn shown on the action plan and enclosure and missing altogether on the salvo plot resulting in the projected salvo fall points being in the wrong place.
As has been observed several times, Rowell’s comments say the timings on the salvo plot may be as much as two minutes out, and this probably indicates they are taken from the clock time set on the AFCT which does not necessarily coincide with chronometer time. The best example of the same phenomenon is the erroneous timing for Norfolk’s measured ranges to Bismarck, conveniently dismissed by A & A as lies, fabrication or misprints, but merely with no time stamped logging of events in the pre-computer era the paper marks on a gunnery plot are the nearest thing, even if the time is incorrect by the chronometer.

These severely-flawed records are supposed to supply “irrefutable” evidence of Bismarck’s course and hence the calculated combined closing rate. The basis of this has yet to be explained since even McMullen had no idea which shots hit. Therefore the practise of joining up random pairs of dots is a worthless technique since even its supporters have realised choosing the right pair of dots can result in very different results to a different pair.
I have found a picture output from a very similar British gunnery plotting system in Peter Padfield’s Guns at Sea which may yet throw some light as to how rangefinder ranges and specified gun ranges recorded by pens on a chart recorder together with pin pricks made by spotters guessing how far over or short shots landed can be related to the salvo map created for the enquiry two and a half months after the event.

When it comes to the Gefechtskizze we have another redrawn rendition. I’m sure the Germans had their own automatic plotting system but this is not the output. No ship has ever steered the ruler-straight course depicted for Prinz Eugen and the two jinking pairs of starboard and port turns make little sense in the purported rationale of avoiding torpedoes. Staying on a new course for only one minute presumes a precision in seeing the passing of the threat surpassing 21st century capabilities. The third turn, the only one that stops Jasper tracking the target, depicted at 06:14 which actually is more than 90 degrees is the only one that looks like a manoeuvre to avoid imaginary torpedoes from the only enemy warships in sight. If fact the one-minute-on -course 50 degree zig-zags look far more like salvo dodging to throw out fire control. But how could this be? The only ship shooting at Prinz Eugen was gone at the time when the zig-zags are depicted. IMHO because the time on the Gefechtsskizze is colossally wrong, just like Norfolk’s gunnery record. I am currently experimenting with shifting the whole thing ten minutes, and evaluating the photos in regard to this new timescale.

Furthermore the Gefechtsskizze is an extremely flawed document with regard to German operations because it does not depict the Bismarck at all. At least the British documents make some attempt to show the relative position of friendly vessels, less successfully when they are out of sight. The luckless Reimann was forced to use the stylised straight line map to justify his own actions, but his shows PoW turning hard towards him after Hood is sunk. The same thing witnesses agree on.

I have seen an old posting by Antonio (before he created his Conspiracy Theory) where he confirmed the report written by Brinkmann including the useless and worthless Gefechtsskizze landed him in hot water for its many shortcomings. Yet this and the “irrefutable” salvo plot are the materials I am supposed to use to create an alternative “strawman” which A & A can assault so as to “prove” their imaginary construct superior and therefore justify their assertions of cowardice, conspiracy and cover-up.

No thanks. I will present my findings in my own good time. Who knows how much new evidence like the apocryphal Jasper to Raeder letter Alberto blabbed about will come to light? Maybe somebody will visit Freiberg and confirm whether Lagemann really wrote on those photos in 1941 that the shots came from Hood?

All the best

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

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 9:10 am

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

just as I was expecting and we can all read hare above now, the guy does not have anything to be presented in support of his " hypothesis".

Simply because nothing can support an " hypothesis" that is largely demonstrated being impossible by the evidence I have provided above.

The provided opportunity you gave him to try to demonstrate what he was declaring has been nicely refuted.

It has been exactly the same attitude we have seen in the case of the Norfolk and Suffolk track positioning and in the Court Martial thread, which are my recent updates on this battle re-construction.

A lot of useless statements and at the end the refusal to show us what he pretended to state countering demonstrated evidence provided.

Everything done with the clear intention only to refute to admit and accept what the evidence were demonstrating while keep on " disturbing " in any possible way what was under discussion and re-constructed.

This guy does not provide anymore any value add to this historical discussion and is only " trolling " the forum with his clear and declared " agenda " in order to try to " mud the water " and counter in any possible way, ... either fair and also very unfairly, provocative and offensive sometimes, ... the all reasoning and evidence provided.

I am sorry for you Bill, but Alberto Virtuani was absolutely right when he wrote you above :
Everybody would like... I have asked the same several times, we are waiting since months for a proposal coming from this guy.

I hope your request will have a better success, forcing him to draw a proposed Bismarck course himself.

Mr.Wadinga is just denying evidences, sometimes proposing the usage of old (mathematically and geometrically proven) wrong battlemaps or insisting on "captions" :shock: ; he is however totally unable to show his own alternative German ships course, respecting the evidences (like the PG battlemap and the PoW salvo plot), because his denial is only motivated by his agenda to avoid to admit that the film was taken after 6:03, thus questioning the Bismarck RoF vs.PoW (and consequently the conclusions of Adm.Santarini and myself regarding PoW gunnery performance). :kaput:
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 )

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by HMSVF » Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:49 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:10 am
Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

just as I was expecting and we can all read hare above now, the guy does not have anything to be presented in support of his " hypothesis".

Simply because nothing can support an " hypothesis" that is largely demonstrated being impossible by the evidence I have provided above.

The provided opportunity you gave him to try to demonstrate what he was declaring has been nicely refuted.

It has been exactly the same attitude we have seen in the case of the Norfolk and Suffolk track positioning and in the Court Martial thread, which are my recent updates on this battle re-construction.

A lot of useless statements and at the end the refusal to show us what he pretended to state countering demonstrated evidence provided.

Everything done with the clear intention only to refute to admit and accept what the evidence were demonstrating while keep on " disturbing " in any possible way what was under discussion and re-constructed.

This guy does not provide anymore any value add to this historical discussion and is only " trolling " the forum with his clear and declared " agenda " in order to try to " mud the water " and counter in any possible way, ... either fair and also very unfairly, provocative and offensive sometimes, ... the all reasoning and evidence provided.

I am sorry for you Bill, but Alberto Virtuani was absolutely right when he wrote you above :
Everybody would like... I have asked the same several times, we are waiting since months for a proposal coming from this guy.

I hope your request will have a better success, forcing him to draw a proposed Bismarck course himself.

Mr.Wadinga is just denying evidences, sometimes proposing the usage of old (mathematically and geometrically proven) wrong battlemaps or insisting on "captions" :shock: ; he is however totally unable to show his own alternative German ships course, respecting the evidences (like the PG battlemap and the PoW salvo plot), because his denial is only motivated by his agenda to avoid to admit that the film was taken after 6:03, thus questioning the Bismarck RoF vs.PoW (and consequently the conclusions of Adm.Santarini and myself regarding PoW gunnery performance). :kaput:
Bye Antonio


Isn't the whole problem that you either believe that an accurate,unequivocal battle map capable of being calculated to the nearest seconds or you don't. Mr Jurens if I understand him correctly, has said that it it isn't. Seeing that he is also a cartographer is pretty persuasive.

I will not degenerate Mr Bonomi's work. It's a tour de force. And I agree that the math doesn't lie if you believe that such a battle map can accurately plot without equivocation what occurred that morning.

As an outsider and interested party of the battle is the problem simply that there could be infinite battle maps produced depending on how you interpret 75 year old data that was produced using either analogue technology or by direct human recordings and input? And you couldn't compare the battle maps because they will probably have different starting points and different interpretations of the evidence at hand? You in effect would have a "Star Trekesque" situation with a multitude of dimensions of the same event. So it ends up a circular argument for which there can be no resolution.

If a recognised and published expert says that it can't be done what is the point of asking the other side to produce a reconstruction ? It would be a pointless exercise just to prove a null hypothesis. You are set up to fail before you have even begun and it would do little to find any resolution as one persons truth wouldn't match the others.

So what are we left with?

And to be honest Im unclear what the ultimate goal is in regards to the ongoing flame war.

Hood was sunk,Bismarck was damaged and eventually sunk, around 3400 men died. Thats all parties can say with any certainty. The evidence is on the bottom of the Atlantic.

Much has been made of Ludovic Kennedys "Pursuit" and sugar coating. Well he was an RN officer at the time so there is bound to be an element of bias. Ditto with Mullenheim-Rechberg. The navies and the ships that they served were extensions of national pride at a time when that meant a lot.

Personally I think the best approach is to take the middle ground as the "truth" (which is a human perception of events) is usually to be found in-between two opposing viewpoints.



I will be honest. This isn't a friendly forum. The only reason I joined is because of the absolute shock of what I read in regards to John Leach. Otherwise I would have stayed well away and just read the flame war from afar. This was opinion as opposed to anything else and I earnestly felt that it should be challenged.


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.


Best wishes



HMSVF

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 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.

Post Reply