Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2754
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Oct 14, 2018 8:12 pm

Byron Angel wrote: "Disagree. However plausible or logical your arguments may be, they are, at the end of the day, simply assumptions...Some other, more explicit evidence is required to make a fully convincing case"
Hi Byron,
while I agree on your point re. the "bow wave", I also recognize that , based ONLY on Brenencke account, there is no 100% sure evidence that the shell passed from compartment XXI to XX (albeit this is by far the most probable explanation for such a large flooding compared to splinters, leaks, etc.). There are however other accounts that are more explicit, like Garzke-Dulin book on page 224 posted by Antonio above (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... =45#p80849) and the Baron account (I'm afraid that nobody was willing to post his account... :think: ).

In my Italian version of his book (pag.141), the Baron states that (my Italic):
"It (the first hit) came into the ship forward of the transverse armored bulkhead, beneath the forecastle. It passed through the whole ship from port to starboard above the waterline. It fractured the watertight bulkhead between compartments XX and XXI and left a hole of 1.5 meters in the exit side. In few time we got around 2,000 tons of water forward."
These accounts, together with Brennecke one, leave a very low probability that things went the way you conjecture. I agree these are just (very authoritative) accounts and not 100% sure evidences, but, reversing your argument, I would say that some other evidences, at least more solid than these ones, are surely needed to even try to imagine another scenario.



Of course, the definitive proof of the hit direction vs Bismarck course is the range closure rate of Bismarck vs PoW (as per PoW salvo plot http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVa.gif), between 5:56:10 and 6:00:30, when she was straddled (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 945#p80806), demonstrating mathematically (and not based on accounts) that Bismarck was always on a course around 220°, from which she could only receive a 330°bearing shot fired by PoW (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVa.gif) from around 20° forward (and not aft) of the beam. The fact that such a hit passed through 2 compartments (as most probably happened) or just one (the XXI) is simply irrelevant.

The picture posted by Antonio is self-explanatory in this regard (much more than my above words):

BS_bow_hit_angles.JPG
BS_bow_hit_angles.JPG (93.44 KiB) Viewed 354 times


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

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Bill Jurens » Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:45 pm

I am dismayed at the reliance being placed on secondary sources as primary reference material. While the summaries provided in secondary sources are sometimes valuable as background information, one must remember that for the most part they really only represent lay-level summaries often edited and written to address the curiosity of a rather general readership, and often subject to somewhat informal and problematical translation. Most of these books are pitched at, and are primarily intended to satisfy, only a fairly casual readership. Serious scholarship really does require rather extensive access to primary-level source material, i.e. material free of simplification. In other words, one should not be quoting author "X", from a secondary source, one should be referring to the the material used by author "X" -- or better -- and formulating one's own conclusions therefrom. Trying to do primary source level research from secondary sources is futile -- a bit like trying to write a history of World War II by watching various and sundry movies made during the 1940's.

In order to do serious research, on must really have access to and interpret primary source material, e.g. the actual testimony of survivors and very detailed drawings and schematics of the ship(s) themselves. This is not easy to come by, and I remain very indebted and eternally grateful to those who have, over the years, been generous enough to share some of these primary level documents with me. You know who you are, and my thanks again go out to you.

The diagrams to be incorporated in the upcoming Garzke/Dulin/Jurens book will illustrate the geometry of various hits in considerable detail, based largely on primary source material. As the book will be coming out in the Spring or Summer of 2019, it is in my opinion neither appropriate nor necessary to reproduce them now. Nor do I feel it necessary or appropriate at this time to enter into lengthy discussions regarding my assertions that the bow hit on Bismarck on 24 May likely approached from aft of the beam. My opinion remains that the overall weight of the evidence in that regard, though admittedly tenuous in places, over-rides alternative evidence to the contrary.

Bill Jurens

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

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by wadinga » Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:30 am

Hello All,

Since this thread is about the specifics of hits and their possible use to establish the relative positions of vessels which made them it is the ideal place to talk about maps.


Hello Antonio,
I will not comment here in on the old 1943 map by F.O. Busch used by Brennecke,

No I wouldn't if I were you. :D Have you forgotten I have the wartime Die Ersten Gefecht and therefore contrary to this misleading observation, know the map is completely different to Brennecke ? In fact it shows your favoured straight course for the Germans until 06:03 (05:03) even though this is contradicted by the photo captions in the very same book. What is clear is that the latest published maps by the Baron and by Brennecke show this turn away as clearly shown in the film and stills, whilst Hood was still afloat and fighting.

If a 14 inch projectile had actually passed through the bulkhead at the extremely oblique angle speculated by yourself, the hole made would have been large and ragged and water would not have been infiltrating, but pouring in.
Durch das bei der hohen Fahrt eindringende Wasser liefen die Abteilungen XX und XXI voll.
Due to the high speed, infiltrating water filled compartments XX and XXI.

From the interrogation of the survivors, on this website:
One shell struck forward, entering the port side of Section XXI, at the height of the battery deck, above the water-line, and exploded on the starboard side, within the ship, at the level of the middle platform deck, making a hole in the ship's side 1-1/2 metres in diameter under water. The explosion damaged bulkheads between Sections XX and XXI and Section XXI and XXII, and accordingly the three forward sections were flooded to a depth of 1 metre above the battery deck, the fore part of the ship sinking two or three metres. Oberleutnant (Ing.) Karl Ludwig Richter, second officer attached to the damage control centre, went forward to inspect the damage and took charge of repairs. The salvage pump room in Section XVII was flooded and so this pump could not be used. The salvage pumps in Section XVII were not very effective and only succeeded in pumping a little water from the three forward sections after the shell entry hole had been plugged and the exit hole had had a plate welded on to it from inside under water by a diver. All available portable salvage pumps were now carried forward and employed. A prisoner estimated that about 3,000 tons of water entered the ship when the above-mentioned three forward sections were flooded. There are some grounds for believing that some of the after compartments were flooded to restore trim, and also that some tons of fuel were pumped from Sections XVI-XIX to bunkers further aft. It was also stated that the port bower anchor cable was slipped. Trim was now partially restored, but "Bismarck's" speed was reduced to 28 knots. There was also a potential fuel shortage as forward fuel bunkers under Sections XX-XXII could no longer be used.)


It had been thought this shell went right through the ship.

This account is quite clear that the shell did not penetrate the bulkhead but the effects of an explosion or perhaps the sheer violence of its arrival did.


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

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

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Byron Angel » Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:29 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 7:33 am
Do you have the German version of the Baron book with his account of the hit and its consequences (it's described after the battle narrative) ? In case, would you mind to post a translation of this too ?

Bye, Alberto
I do not have the German language edition of Mullenheim-Rechberg's account. I do have the English language edition (publication date 1979?), "Battleship Bismarck: A Survivor's Story", with translation by Jack Sweetman. The relevant passages are excerpted below -

- - -

That first hit, forward of the armored transverse bulkhead in the forecastle, passed completely
through the ship from port to starboard above the waterline but below the bow wave. It damaged
the bulkheads between Compartments XX and XXI and Compartments XXI and XXII and left a
one-and-a-half-meter hole in the exit side. Before long we had nearly 2,000 tons of seawater in
our forecastle.


>>>>> Once again, the account is frustratingly imprecise as to the exact path of the projectile, stating only that it entered the forecastle from port, injured the bulkheads separating compartment XXII from XXI and XXI from XX while passing through and exited the ship on the starboard side.

- - -

The account of the consequences of hits 1 and 2 are given below -

Our damage-control parties and machinery-repair teams made a detailed inspection of the
damage that had been done by the two serious hits and set about making what repairs they could.
[We had six twenty-six-man damage-control parties—one each for Compartments I-IV, V-VII,
VIII-X, XI-XIII, XIV-XVII, and XVIII-XXII. Each party was led by a warrant officer
(machinist), who was assisted by a petty officer. The petty officer of each team assigned most of
his men to important points in the area under his supervision but always kept from four to six
men with him to take care of emergencies. In the event of a hit or any severe shock, each man
checked the various tanks and spaces assigned to him and reported by telephone to the petty
officer. The latter gave all the reports of his team to the warrant officer, who relayed a
consolidated report to the command center in Compartment XIV on the upper platform deck,
where the First Officer received it. Thus, the ship's command was informed of damage in the
shortest time possible.]

Forward, the anchor windlass room was unusable and the lower decks between Compartments
XX and XXI were flooded. Consequently, the bulkhead behind Compartment XX was being
subjected not only to the pressure of static water, but, on account of the big hole in our hull, to
that created by our forward motion. To keep it from giving way, a master carpenter's team shored
it up while the action was still going on. After the action, a work party led by the second damagecontrol
officer, Oberleutnant (Ingenieurwesen) Karl-Ludwig Richter, attempted to enter the
forward pumping station through the forecastle in order to repair the pumps so that the contents
of the forward fuel storage tanks could be transferred to the service tanks near the boiler rooms.
But the pumps in Compartment XX were under water, those in Compartment XVII did not help
much, and the valves in the oil lines in the forecastle were no longer serviceable. When an effort
to divert the oil via the upper deck also failed, we realized that the 1,000 tons of fuel in the
forward tanks were not going to be any use to us. Lütjens turned down Lindemann's suggestion
of heeling the ship first to one side and then the other and reducing speed in order to allow the
holes in our hull to be patched.

Later, however, we did slow to 22 knots for a while, which at least allowed matting to be placed
over the holes, and the flow of water into the ship was reduced.

Eventually, we had to shut down power station No. 4, in Compartment XIV. We still had
sufficient energy for all our action stations, but our 100 per cent reserve capacity was cut in half.
The damage-repair parties stuffed the shattered bulkheads in the port No. 2 boiler room and the
auxiliary boiler room with hammocks to keep the water in check.

As a result of the flooding, the Bismarck was down 3 degrees by the bow and had a 9-degree list
to port. The tips of the blades of her starboard propeller were already turning above water. The
leader of Damage-Control Team No. l, Stabsobermaschinist Wilhelm Schmidt, was ordered to
flood the flooding and trimming tanks in Compartments II and III, and this improved the
situation somewhat.

The lasting effect of the hits in Compartments XIV and XXI was that, mainly because of water
pressure on the forward bulkheads, our top speed was restricted to 28 knots. We were now
leaving a broad streak of oil in our wake, which was undoubtedly going to help the enemy's
reconnaissance and pursuit. The oil was leaking from the service tanks in Compartment XIV and
possibly also from the storage tanks in Compartments XX and XXI.

The lasting effect of the hits in Compartments XIV and XXI was that, mainly because of water
pressure on the forward bulkheads, our top speed was restricted to 28 knots. We were now
leaving a broad streak of oil in our wake, which was undoubtedly going to help the enemy's
reconnaissance and pursuit. The oil was leaking from the service tanks in Compartment XIV and
possibly also from the storage tanks in Compartments XX and XXI.


- - -

FWIW - The appendices of this edition include a fold-out profile of Bismarck with some internal compartmentation detail. Hit 1 is placed at armored deck level, very slightly below and very slightly aft of dead-center of the side of compartment XXI, as viewed from the starboard side of the ship ..... no idea what that means or how precise it was meant to be.

B

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

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:12 am

He Byron,
many thanks for this excerpt from the Baron's book in English.

It looks like in the English edition the compartment XXII-XXI bulkhead is mentioned as impacted by the shell too in addition to the one between XXI and XX.... :think:

This contradicts both the Italian version of the Baron's book (translation E.Bagnasco) and Garzke-Dulin analysis.
I guess we will have to wait for Mr.Jurens book to see any solid new evidence pointing to this shell coming from aft the beam. For the time being all accounts points to a shell entering XXI and flooding XXI and XX, therefore far more probably coming form forward the beam. I would not trust much the survivor excerpt posted here above, as it is clearly wrong when speaking of the pump in compartment XVII as being flooded :shock: : this is just a blatant error, confusing XX compartment pump with XVII... :lol:

I find anyway VERY unprobable that a shell not passing a watertight bulkhead and not exploding is able to damage two different bulkheads and flood two compartments in such a way that the bulkhead between compartment XX and XIX should have been reinforced due to the water pressure (as per the Baron account)....This points clearly to the direct penetration of the bulkhead between XXI and XX and consequent large flooding (pouring water, not leaking).... :think:

Of course this is very strongly (I would say irrefutably) supported by the course of Bismarck (220°) at that time (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 945#p80806) that demonstrates how a shell cannot come from aft in any way, and we will see the map (or at least the course of Bismarck) adopted in the same Mr.Jurens' book to support this theory.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

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

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

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:32 am

Hello everybody,

while we all wait for the demonstration that the PoW shell came from aft the beam on the Bismarck bow, we have 3 sure evidence to refer to.

1) The PoW shell hit entered from compartment XXI.

2) The PoW shell came from bearing of around 330° ( true bearing ) as reported into the PoW gunnery plot.

3) The Bismarck was following the Prinz Eugen on course of around 220° ( true bearing ) as showed on the PoW gunnery plot too.

I personally do not think that the surviving leak control party leader 1, Obermaschinist Wilhelm Schmidt, was a secondary unreliable source.


Of course I have my primary-level source material, … but it will not be published until 2021, if not later.


About the above map :

https://www.amazon.de/Geheimnis-Bismarc ... 3442035236

I suggest to purchase and check into this book, … published 1950 by Fritz Otto Busch, … when someone is using and referring to something, ... it would be better if he knows what he is talking about.


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

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

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:25 am

@Jose
The damage control book isn’t a report, but a general map of all watertight rooms. It is the basis for any damage control activity in regard of communication and countermeasures. In damage control unambiguity is essential for survival. To illustrate it, here is a picture of a damage report note for a German destroyer from my collection. The pages are perforated. In case of damage such a sheet would be pulled out, filled in and served to the damage control officer directly. That means that the information of the ship command about damages consists of a compilation of the information on these notes. In case of Bismarck the designation “Panzerdeck” and its location in compartment XX and XXI is unambiguous due to the damage control book. Therefore it is almost unimaginable that the exit hole wasn’t above the armor deck, but higher.
20181014_133043.jpg
20181014_133043.jpg (50.22 KiB) Viewed 260 times
@Antonio
1) The surviving leak control party leader 1, Obermaschinist Wilhelm Schmidt, was the witness that Jochen Brennece most likely took all the information from, and I assume it was a good and reliable witness to trust about it, ... due to his role during the event.
Wilhelm Schmidt was control party leader 1, but the damage was in the area of control party 6. There was just information exchange between the adjacent control parties.
Quite interesting is something from Johannes Zimmermann. AFAIK Zimmermann was member of the firefighters of damage control party 6. He made a sketch with the shell entering in XX and exiting in XXI. So it's one person's word against another's.
The hit entered from the compartment XXI as stated, … and I invite you all to realize that on the port side compartment XXI there is not the white bow wave, … that is painted exactly at the level of compartment XX on both sides.
This information is a crucial, … because it is an indication of the exact low and high limits of the area, .. it was above ( higher ) than the waterline ( low limit ) , … but below the bow white wave and I assume the top level of the white painture ( high limit ), … this because the white bow wave goes on top of the waterline on both sides obviously.
It is never mentioned anywhere that the white painted wave has anything to do with the hit.
3) The Bugspillraum and leak pumping E-Teil now failed and the valve of the fuel oil feed pipe forward no longer operated.
They are all located in the compartment XX.
A hit entering in XX could have the same effect. It doesn’t even have to cross the bulkhead to XXI.
from Garzke-Dulin book on page 224 :
My understanding is that Garzke placed the exit hole in compartment XXI.
Regards

Marc

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

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

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by wadinga » Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:33 am

Hello A & A,


Here is some primary-level source material from 1941, no need to wait until 2021:
The explosion damaged bulkheads between Sections XX and XXI and Section XXI and XXII, and accordingly the three forward sections were flooded to a depth of 1 metre above the battery deck, the fore part of the ship sinking two or three metres.
There is nothing
frustratingly imprecise as to the exact path of the projectile,
It is extremely precise, only the effect of the projectile damaged the bulkhead.

Walter Lorenzen said the following in his survivor report (available on this website) also primary material from 1941:
About 1 hour after the battle, we had to cut out plates with which the leak in compartment 21 was to be sealed. The plate had a diameter of 1 meter. The Master Mechanic told us he believed the holes could be welded shut during [the ship's] periods of reduced speed. The [repair] attempt was dropped because the commander would not reduce the ship's speed.

Walter isn't cutting any plates for compartment XX is he? Because there isn't a hull penetration in XX is there? :cool:

The map in the Story of Prince Eugen, Busch's english language book of 1958 also looks nothing like Brennecke's map, but does show a very slight movement away around 04:50 by Bismarck with PG maintaining a straighter course. So in neither Die Ersten Gefecht nor the Story of Prince Eugen does Busch have maps that look like Brennecke's.

it would be better if he knows what he is talking about.

You know exactly what you are talking about, but are prepared to distort, ignore or fabricate facts to support your crumbling thesis.

All the best

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

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

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:15 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga posted from Walter Lorenzen: "About 1 hour after the battle, we had to cut out plates with which the leak in compartment 21 was to be sealed. The plate had a diameter of 1 meter. "
A single 1 meter plate can patch the entry hole in compartment XXI (around 14"+ diameter) but in no way can be used to patch the exit hole of 1.5 meters..... :negative: Possibly someone else than Lorenzen prepared another plate for the exit hole. However the Baron speaks about "material" (possibly a "paglietto turafalle", in Italian, I don't have a translation in English but it is used to patch holes from outside to slow the water inflow), not about plates, at least in first instance....

Therefore still no 100% certainty about the exit hole location, except the clear fact that a very large water inflow affected compartment XX with high water pressure and the bulkhead between XX and XIX had to be reinforced due this pressure.
This strongly suggests that a hole was in compartment XX too in addition to leaks, but if there are other solid evidences, we can easily wait for Mr.Jurens book.



At the end of the day, however, despite all primary and secondary accounts + hit details, the hit must be timed and correlated to a map (Antonio has done this work and his map matches with some accounts and mostly with the irrefutable range closure rate of PoW http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 945#p80806 that demonstrates Bismarck could never be on a course more westerly than 220° during the time she received hits 5:56:10 to 6:00:30).
This is just mathematical and cannot be denied by any account.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:39 am, edited 4 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
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by José M. Rico » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:31 am

Wadinga & Antonio,
Just for your information. The map attached below is basically a carbon copy of the map published by Russell Grenfell in 1948 "The Bismarck Episode".
I have no idea why this old map was reproduced in Brennecke's 2003 book edition, that is five years after the author passed away, but it probably had to do more with the Publisher than anything else.
wadinga wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:26 am
Image

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

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:40 am

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

as I anticipated now the discussion is becoming really interesting, ... :wink:

I see what you wrote about the damage report and I understand the concept associated with it, ... it does make sense to me.

Compartments XX and XXI where the ones involved on the damages.

I was suspecting that Zimmermann was one of the other Bismarck survivors knowing about this hit, ... but never knew he made a sketch or released detailed information about this event that were missed by Jochen Brennecke and by the Baron von Mullenheim Rechberg.
It would be interesting to see the Johannes Zimmermann sketch.

As you wrote at this point it will be one survivor account against another, … with their memories.

But this is only putting in discussion with a 50% chance possibility the first of my 3 key evidences, because we still have Schmidt account of the shell entering from the compartment XXI against the Zimmermann one :
1) The PoW shell hit entered from compartment XXI.

2) The PoW shell came from bearing of around 330° ( true bearing ) as reported into the PoW gunnery plot.

3) The Bismarck was following the Prinz Eugen on course of around 220° ( true bearing ) as showed on the PoW gunnery plot too.


The other 2 showed into the HMS Prince of Wales gunnery plot are still there and nobody can refute them, ... and that shell came from one of the 3 straddles of the PoW guns as we all know very well, … and the Bismarck course was traced and plotted too during that period.

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVa.gif


Just as Alberto very properly underlined above, ...

If we add to it the Capt Leach statement : " It was considered expedient to break off the action and consolidate the position, and the ship, after being manoeuvred round the remains of "Hood", turned away behind a smoke screen.
"Y" Turret fired in local during the turn as smoke blanked the after director.
It now seems probable that the enemy turned away at the same time as "Prince of Wales" and about two enemy salvos were seen short during this period. "

We can easily realize that Bismarck was observed turning away more or less at the same time as PoW did, … so around 06:03 and never before of course as the PoW gunnery does demonstrate too.

Rowell plotted the same as confirmation for the Hood second board :

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVb.gif

I see very little chances ( almost zero in this situation ) that the PoW hit on Bismarck bow can be associated to a path aft of the Bismarck beam, ... consequently.



@ Jose',

YES, ... you are absolutely right and I agree with you.

The story of those old maps is really something interesting, … one copying the other and keep on changing them, … until the PG and PoW tracks became available, … and the PG film too, … on the summer of 1974.

I think I will agree with you also on the reasons why it was used on the Brennecke 2003 book, … by the editor.

Anyway, … the fact that somebody printed it once again does not make it right on 2003, … as it was wrong already on 1948 and after.

More or less the same story occurred with Schmalenbach old map and the Baron on his second edition : a reprint that should have never happened.

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... ell#p59648

Grenfell_map.jpg
Grenfell_map.jpg (41.21 KiB) Viewed 220 times


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

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

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by wadinga » Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:55 pm

Hello All,

One of the annoying features is that neither of my copies of Grenfell has this map though I do not dispute its origin for a second. Still a minor setback. :cool:
However the Baron speaks about "material" (possibly a "paglietto turafalle", in Italian, I don't have a translation in English but it is used to patch holes from outside to slow the water inflow), not about plates,

There are descriptions of damage control or "collision" mats being placed over the side secured with lines to stem the flow. However these came adrift later due to high speed in bad weather, conditions that they were not designed to cope with. Lorenzen says the leak from the sea for which he made patches (plural) was in compartment 21. That he forgot to mention some other larger leak in some other compartment is extremely unlikely...………. Your argument about the diameter of the patch (es) assumes you know how they were to be used. Overlapping plates are stronger than a single disc.
Of course this is very strongly (I would say irrefutably) supported by the course of Bismarck (220°)
3) The Bismarck was following the Prinz Eugen on course of around 220° ( true bearing ) as showed on the PoW gunnery plot too.
Another example of self supporting circular argument. There is no evidence Bismarck was on 220T. The meandering path of PoW's salvo plot is not 220T. The salvo plot is drawn on a simplified version of PoW's actual path, ignoring significant turns as described by witnesses. There is no guarantee the striking shells were from those salvoes observed to be straddles. Therefore this course 220T cannot be used to determine the angle of shell hit. Therefore it can be obviated by evidence from the shell hit. Like PoW's compass platform hit path it defines the course the ship was on when the shell hit, not vice versa.
and the Bismarck course was traced and plotted too during that period.


You still refuse to give the "assumed course" written on the top of the salvo plot sheet. Why exactly is that? :D


All the best

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

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

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:49 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "That he forgot to mention some other larger leak in some other compartment is extremely unlikely...
...Your argument about the diameter of the patch (es) assumes you know how they were to be used..."
Only if he was responsible for the plates (or other material) to be used in both compartments....
...does Mr.Wadinga ? :negative:


Wadinga wrote: "The meandering path of PoW's salvo plot is not 220T"
Again this is NOT the right thread (this is: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 945#p80798)

The "meandering" track is not significantly meandering at all. :negative: The estimated course of Bismarck in PoW plot (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... encIVa.gif) goes from 195° to 225°, however the straddles (disregarding the hits) are the ones that must be taken into account because their distances are surely correct (with a tolerance due to PoW salvo max spread ONLY), and they demonstrate that Bismarck distance reduced by almost 5000 yards in 4 minutes (from 5:56:10 till 6:00:30).
There is no other way for this to happen than having Bismarck on a course surely NOT more westerly than around 220°.
Even taking into account only the last 2 straddles (and almost everybody refer to this hit as the first one), we get a course of 225° (thus still a hit should have come from 15° forward the beam).
Therefore these fantasies about Bismarck track are pure speculations based on nothing at all.

Wadinga wrote: "Therefore this course 220T cannot be used to determine the angle of shell hit"
Of course it can. The irrefutable course around 220°(and NEVER significantly more westerly) determines that ALL hits received from 5:56 till 6:00:30 were received from forward the beam (from around 20° forward).


This pathetic attempt to deny also mathematics and geometry is simply ridiculous, but we know very well the agenda of this guy, refusing everything that can get us to a conclusion, unfortunately unable to present a decent alternative, as the poor performance about old copied maps he was trying to sell as brand new, showed clearly.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

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

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

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by Byron Angel » Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:21 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:19 am
Hello everybody,

from Garzke-Dulin book on page 224 :


Garzke_page_224.jpg


I will not comment here in on the old 1943 map by F.O. Busch used by Brennecke, ... as someone is going backward on the history of those maps evolution instead of going forward according to the new evidence surfaced recently, ... for the obvious reasons that the new evidence simply prove him wrong. Just a pathetic desperate attempt of a loser, ... to be managed on the proper thread.

Bye Antonio

The above-mentioned page 224 passage is taken from "Battleships - Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II" by Dulin and Garzke (copyright 1985).

Dulin and Garzke wrote a later essay entitled "The Bismarck Encounter" which appeared in the journal Marine Technology (Volume 30, Number 4, pp 258-275) which incorporated the results of the Ballard expedition as well as contributions from Bismarck survivors as referenced here -

The authors of this paper have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to assist Dr. Robert Ballard
of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and the Quest Group in the discovery and analysis of the Bismarck
wreck in June 1989. Although we did not participate in Dr. Ballard's expedition aboard the Star Hercules,
we gave advice and counsel to his personnel and did much of the photo interpretation. We were greatly
aided by two of the Bismarck survivors, former German Ambassador Baron von Mullenheim-Rechberg
(former LCDR, German Navy), the senior surviving officer, whom we assisted in the republishing of his
book, and Mr. Josef Statz, who was the sole survivor from the Damage Control Central on the Bismarck
[1]. 3 These two men worked tirelessly with the authors and assisted in the preparation of drawings by
Mr. Thomas Webb of various views of the damaged Bismarck, which shows her just before her capsizing.
These views of the damaged Bismarck were prepared after many hours of intensive study of the videotapes
and still photography brought back by Dr. Ballard's team from the wreck site some 15 317 ft below the
water surface, 600 miles west of Brest, France. A number of these views have been published in various
magazine articles and books [2-5].


Their description of the damage effects of the hit forward is much more cautious; detailed description of the projectile path of the forecastle hit (as previously given in their 1983 book) is omitted. By comparison, the physical details of the underwater 14in hit in the boiler room space, the torpedo hit amidships and the mortal torpedo hit which disabled the rudder all remain described in detail -

The most important damage was caused by the third 14-
in. shell, which passed through the 60 mm splinter belt well
forward on the port bow, whose exit hole was below the waterline.
Two watertight compartments in the bow were totally
flooded with a mixture of oil and seawater. Although the
Germans were able to localize the damage caused by the two
underwater shell hits, flooding in these compartments was
permanent and had to be countered by flooding port voids
aft in the area of the steering gear.

The Bismarck took a 9-deg port list and a trim down by
the bow of 2 m. More importantly, there was a loss of more
than 1000 tons of precious fuel. Fuel tanks had been contaminated
by seawater, and the fuel distribution system forward
had been seriously damaged. None of this damage was visible
in the photography brought back by Dr. Ballard.



B

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 679
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck

Post by paul.mercer » Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:51 pm

paul.mercer wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:45 pm
Gentlemen,
In the picture shown earlier of the exit hole in Bismarck's bow, the caption underneath says it is approx 6.5 feet in diameter, if PoW's shell did not explode surely the hole would only be around 14" or so, or might it have turned and come out sideways to cause so big a hole? If that is indeed the actual size, then it's not surprising she shipped in 2000 tons of water.
Gentlemen,
I fear my question (Above)in page 4 may have got lost amidst all the other replies, would the shell have to have turned sideways to make such a big hole?

Post Reply