Bismarck at DS after the second turn

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello All,

I have retyped part of Brooke's description to remind people of what was actually seen, but it is still being ignored to be replaced by constructed/imagined "mist":
Something suddenly came up over the horizon to grow slowly but distinctly ; the top of a mast. Then a little to its left something else. I shall never forget the thrill of that moment. A squat grey lump on a stalk, with bars protruding each side- the Bismarck's main armament director.
Having sailed in high latitudes I can personally confirm this kind of gin-clear atmosphere is not unusual. In Busch's account is described the sight of mountains of Greenland as seen from PG, lifted by the cold water mirage (still being denied by some) and which must have been many tens of miles away. So it is not true to say:
even when visibility is very good, mist is not totally absent
Dunmunro's point that since Brooke knew afterwards that the first thing he saw was Bismarck and that the forward director tracked Bismarck from its higher position is also clear. He did not need to see two German ships together to know that the right hand one, the first one which became visible to him, as so graphically described, was Bismarck.

From the plans I have looked at, PoW's crow's nest is not at 50m above sea level, that is masthead level, where the Type 271 radar aerials are. The unfortunate Knocker White would have had his gonads microwaved up there. One unidentified vessel was initially reported, and the first vessel Brooke saw was the one which continued to be his target, Bismarck.

Once again a speculative track for Bismarck, with a speculative speed...…………………...
when traced back for 23 minutes until 05:37 with a straight line at average 27-28 knots speed will be at around 337° T bearing from the PoW position at 05:37, ... based on the PoW known sailed track at 28 knots average
is supposed to prove the single unidentified ship of the first report could not be Bismarck. If the supposed speed is wrong it could have been, if the course adopted was not arrow straight, it could have been. The only evidence to support this is two entirely different bearing pairs on different objects both logged, although not necessarily occurring, at 06:00 and one of which is not even recorded numerically, but derived from a useless and worthless map, one which was supposed to have been replaced over its inaccuracies. This mathematically derived opinion/speculation, based on an assumption of an arrow straight track on one side and unknown timing of course changes and consequent speed loss is supposed to overturn the direct witness statement of Geoffrey Brooke, the man who had Bismarck in his gunsight.

Whilst we are discussing this matter here, lurking below the horizon, like Prinz Eugen's invisible topmast is the unproven assertion that large parts of the factual reports (only of course the British ones) of what happened are actually deliberately falsified.
just as we did with the mirage occurrence time ago, ...to discover later that the mirage effect was an invention and Capt Ellis with his warship was in a very different situation on that moment based on his own autobiography,
Evidence of the quality of the mathematical geometrical rigour being applied is a pair of derived bearings expressed to a tenth of a degree which do not even point at the centres of the rather crude triangular or square representations of their targets on an explanatory sketch created months later without any pretence at such mathematical precision.

Looking forward with enthusiasm to what we may discover in the New Year especially if the mysteries and inconsistencies of the Denmark Straits are made clearer when/if Jasper 's real gunnery report becomes available.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Byron Angel »

Mathematically speaking, it would certainly be possible for Bismarck to have first become visible, despite her trailing Prinz Eugen in formation. It all depends upon how much higher above the waterline was Bismarck's main director as compared to that of Prinz Eugen.

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

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Having sailed in high latitudes I can personally confirm this kind of gin-clear atmosphere is not unusual"
From the height of the crow nest (or the radar platform), White could theoretically see the tops of the German ships before they were at 30 sm.
He did not, therefore visibility was not "gin-clear" as speculated, but "limited" to 18-19 sm.

Wadinga wrote: " The unfortunate Knocker White would have had his gonads microwaved up there"
...had the Type 281 radar been switched on, but it was not...at least until enemy was sighted (see Leach narrative).
It seems reasonable for White to be sent to the highest platform on the mast, but even the crow nest is around 40 meters high, while Brooke&Co. were much lower (from where the tops of the Germans became visible from around 15 sm only, at 05:44, as per second radio message).

Wadinga wrote: "Once again a speculative track for Bismarck, with a speculative speed"
...once again we are all waiting for Mr.Wadinga to propose an alternative map to this one (download/file.php?id=3346), accomodating his "theory" of a Bismarck on bearing 334° from PoW at 05:37, while able to be on bearing 330°, 15.000 meters at 6:00, because just repeating Brooke's account will not change the geometrical traces reconstruction. I doubt he can achieve this result, but let's be optimistic for the coming New Year!



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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,
White could theoretically see the tops of the German ships before they were at 30 sm.
He did not,
So not being able to see them at 30 miles means he could only see them at 19-20 miles. Why? What happened to the bit in between? We know when the radio report of an unidentified vessel on an unknown course was made, but how long before that was "something" actually sighted? Maybe 5, 10 or 15 minutes delay spent hoping to get something more informative from the lookout than "unknown vessel on unknown course at extreme unknown distance on a estimated bearing of about ". As Dunmunro has pointed out frequently, bearings not rounded to the nearest 5 degrees are only really available from established lookout stations with reference scales eg on the Bridge Wings.

Paddon says he ranged on the German ships at 26,000 yards with Type 281, I hope White got down in time, otherwise he would be " Fried Knackers" White. Even Paddon did not have a gyro-stabilised bearing indicator, only ship's head relative.

We have been asked to verify bearings not draw speculative maps. One feat of guesswork is bad enough.
If the supposed speed is wrong it could have been, if the course adopted was not arrow straight, it could have been. The only evidence to support this is two entirely different bearing pairs on different objects both logged, although not necessarily occurring, at 06:00 and one of which is not even recorded numerically, but derived from a useless and worthless map, one which was supposed to have been replaced over its inaccuracies. This mathematically derived opinion/speculation, based on an assumption of an arrow straight track on one side and unknown timing of course changes and consequent speed loss is supposed to overturn the direct witness statement of Geoffrey Brooke, the man who had Bismarck in his gunsight.
Byron is perfectly correct, from the angle at which the German ships were seen, PG's leading position is immaterial, the bigger ship comes over the horizon first.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by dunmunro »

Just an FYI for everyone, especially Bill Jurens, who may have missed it. This data is extracted from the Admiralty War Diary and the two files contain all the relevant RN radio transmissions from May 22/23 onward:

http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/Bismarckops.pdf

http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/Bismarckops2.pdf
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Byron Angel »

"From the height of the crow nest (or the radar platform), White could theoretically see the tops of the German ships before they were at 30 sm.
He did not, therefore visibility was not "gin-clear" as speculated, but "limited" to 18-19 sm."

Following data taken or otherwise inferred/drawn from "Meteorology for Ship and Aircraft Operation", Peter Kraght; Cornell Maritime Press, 1943:

The following categories are named/identified/defined by the author as restrictions to visibility:
> Haze
> Smoke
> Blowing Dust and Sand
> Blowing and Drifting Snow
> Fog
> Drizzle
> Rain
> Snow

Each such category is ordered in various degrees of severity, such as -
> Dense, thick or very heavy
> Moderate
> Light
> Very light
> Trace
- with expected range of visibility noted for each degree of severity.

Mist is not a recognized category of visibility restriction; the closest named descriptor would probably be a very light or "Trace" Fog, which is said to limit visibility to a range of 4 to 6 sea miles. Given that visibility on the morning of 4 May was judged by both sides to be well in excess of 10 sea miles, it is unlikely that we are dealing with fog/mist.

Since neither drizzle, rain, snow, smoke, nor blowing dust and sand were noted on the morning in question, the agent limiting visibility would arguably be Haze, which in trace amounts is said to limit visibility to a range of 10 to 20 sea miles. Haze is defined as "atmospheric pollution composed principally of very small salt crystals and dust particles which give dark objects a blue tinge and bright objects a yellow-orange tinge. Haze ...<snip>... for practical purposes may be regarded as absent when visibility is over 20 miles."

Average daytime visibility in the North Sea is said to be approximately 7 sea miles; 19 sea miles, if not absolutely "perfect" visibility, is extremely good visibility indeed for the North Atlantic (IMO). There was a reason why the morning was described as "gin-clear".

B
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

I am having trouble deciphering the chart mentioned, i.e. (download/file.php?id=3346). Although the depiction of the British track on this reconstruction appears to be clearly shown, there appear to be five nearly parallel lines relating to the German formation, accompanied by a variety of unexplained (or at least unexplained to me) dimensions.

More explanation of exactly what this plot is attempting to show would be welcome...

I, too, was struck by a previously posted chart which apparently showed bearings to within one tenth of a degree. Six minutes of arc is awfully small -- I started out years ago using what was then called a 'five-minute' transit, which required a vernier and was pretty tricky to use even when one was highly experienced and standing perfectly still in the middle of a sunny field with the instrument on a very stable tripod. Current equipment is, of course, now much better and entirely digital, but a tenth of a degree would have probably been practically well beyond state of the art for sea-borne observations in 1940...

Comments, as always, welcome...

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

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "Average daytime visibility in the North Sea is said to be approximately 7 sea miles; 19 sea miles, if not absolutely "perfect" visibility, is extremely good visibility indeed for the North Atlantic (IMO)."
A very good visibility of 18-19 sm is exactly what matches accounts and mostly White seeing PG from 19 sm from a very high position.
Unlimited visibility is a theoretical exceptional condition, when no haze/mist/dust/air humidity (let's call it as we prefer) at all allows to see up to the horizon from 50 meters high (around 30 sm for the superstructures of the ships being over the horizon) and this was clearly not the case on May 24 as White could see the first German ship "only" from 19 sm. From this distance, the horizon has nothing to do with the limit of the "visibility", only the transparency of the air has.
From around 20 meters height (Brooke) or 30 (Leach), the tops of the German ships could be seen only from a lesser distance, probably from 15 sm only, due to earth curvature, and not to air transparency.



In any case, I suggest to Mr.Wadinga (and to anyone else who believes that the 334° bearing at 05:37 was Bismarck and not Prinz Eugen) to produce a credible trace instead of the one produced by Antonio / Herr Nilsson (download/file.php?id=3346). Geometry and speed demonstrate that the ship was PG, appearing from 334° at 05:37 (message) and ending to 323° at 06:00 (Rowell) (and Bismarck consequently moving from around 340° (337°- 342°, depending on her speed), to exactly 330° at 06:00, as per PoW salvo plot).

Any credible alternative is welcome. However, just speculating about Mr.White's fertility while exposed to a switched off Type 281 radar "emissions" or about the way Brooke saw the German ships from his position, will not help much the reconstruction.



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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello All,

Let's have another eye witness tell us about gin-clear air off Greenland on the evening of the 23rd May 1941. Busch aboard Prinz Eugen (Ulrich Rudofsky, October 2003)
There, behind the field rise cloud-like, but motionless, silently and deathly far, the high, snow-covered mountains. The mountains of Greenland are brought magically much closer by a kind of mirage despite the great distance. They are more than 3000 meters high, as the chart shows, which I was able to take a peek at during the last watch. We are still very far off the terra firma of Greenland, but the mountains are visible and imposing, with their gentle contours, with snow and ice on their summits: an alpine landscape in the far North.
I'm sure Ulrich has got these terms right: "despite the great distance" and "very far off", surely enough said. Also enough said about the attempt to suggest only British reports mention coldwater mirages because of some fancy that they are deliberately misleading. Yes I know Saturday morning is not Friday night but all estimates of distance over 15 miles are just that and the extreme visibility was noted by Rowell and others.

Estimated
Geometry and speed
can't "demonstrate" anything. If the observations don't support them, they need to be changed. Nobody recorded Bismarck's speed or course changes, and we know the British plots provided for the enquiry in August were never intended to have the precision necessary to show PoW's actual track, the turns are impossibly tight and there is no speed loss represented after turning 40 degrees at 28 knots. There is also significant evidence the 05:55 turn either happened later or not at all, affecting the location of the derived 06:00 location and therefore Bismarck's bearing from that point.


I am heartened to hear that such an experienced cartographer is somewhat bamboozled by some of the maps presented as straightforward proofs, as I too find them confusing. It seems to me that four sides of a traverse are presented, and an unwarranted assumption that since three are "perfect", only one option for the length of the fourth side from those presented will work.

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: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Estimated "geometry and speed" can't "demonstrate" anything. If the observations don't support them, they need to be changed"
Exactly ! They need to be changed, not to be refused, without having any credible alternative to them.


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: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

I think the case that seems to be being made that refutation of some proposal "A" requires the presentation of a more viable or credible "B" as a substitute. If so, I think that idea is wrong.

One need not know of a better alternative to claim, with validity, that a current theory is incorrect. For example, someone might claim that my automobile engine doesn't start because there is not enough tomato juice in the fuel tank. In order to claim, with validity, that that theory is incorrect, I need not have a better alternative. A professional mechanic might, but I don't. So saying that proposal "A" is for some reason incorrect does not require that I have some explicit better alternative "B" to bring to the argument, nor does it suggest that in the absence of other explicit alternatives, proposal "A" might be more likely correct than any other proposal.

Along similar lines, I do not have to know where person "X" is at any particular time to make the perfectly valid claim that I DO know that they are not sitting next to me.

Bill Jurens
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Byron Angel »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:01 pm Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Estimated "geometry and speed" can't "demonstrate" anything. If the observations don't support them, they need to be changed"
Exactly ! They need to be changed, not to be refused, without having any credible alternative to them.

Bye, Alberto
- - -

[ 1 ] Go here - https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html - for a brief introductory explanation as to why, as much as one might like it to be) this vision issue is not simply a geometry exercise.

[ 2 ] It is not logical to assume that the fact that a case/argument might be shown to be unreliable or inconclusive necessarily means that a reliable/correct/accurate answer/solution must therefore be at hand. I would suggest that the important thing to do in cases like this is to a reconstruction of events, such as this one at hand, is subject to a certain number of assumptions, inferences, interpretations, interpolations and extrapolations.

B
User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by José M. Rico »

dunmunro wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:13 pm Just an FYI for everyone, especially Bill Jurens, who may have missed it. This data is extracted from the Admiralty War Diary and the two files contain all the relevant RN radio transmissions from May 22/23 onward:

http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/Bismarckops.pdf

http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/Bismarckops2.pdf
That is great material. Thanks for sharing! :ok:
Maybe we could transcribe those files into HTML format and upload them to this website's archives together with the other war diaries?
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by dunmunro »

José M. Rico wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:02 am
dunmunro wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:13 pm Just an FYI for everyone, especially Bill Jurens, who may have missed it. This data is extracted from the Admiralty War Diary and the two files contain all the relevant RN radio transmissions from May 22/23 onward:

http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/Bismarckops.pdf

http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/Bismarckops2.pdf
That is great material. Thanks for sharing! :ok:
Maybe we could transcribe those files into HTML format and upload them to this website's archives together with the other war diaries?
You are more than welcome to do so. AFAIK, it is all in the public domain.

Upon re-reading the first file, I notice that I started at 00 hrs on the 24th. I'll upload the data for the 22/23rd of May ASAP.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Bill Jurens wrote: "I think the case that seems to be being made that refutation of some proposal "A" requires the presentation of a more viable or credible "B" as a substitute. If so, I think that idea is wrong."
Hi Mr.Jurens,
with due respect, I totally disagree with your statement.

The ships were there that day, they could not fly and they had limited speeds. There was an actual battle that can be reconstructed.
If someone is not convinced (for any kind of reason) by this starting point, he must propose an alternative to the proposed courses/speeds.
Just saying that cherry-picked witnesses don't match with the starting point is not a way to progress in the reconstruction this battle.

E.g. if someone trust Brooke, he must propose a different trace and map, else Brooke is simply and evidently wrong.


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