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,

Herr Nillson's speculation that the first turn away didn't happen until before the ninth salvo makes a lot of sense. It could be that the firing of the ninth salvo was delayed until the ship had steadied on the new course helping explain the very lengthy gap between salvoes, at a time when speed of firing was of the essence. This may be one serious error in Rowell's maps exposed.


However there may be other turns not represented at all, just as this one is mistimed and the further track of PoW after this point is therefore mispositioned. Part of the debate here has for several years doubted the veracity of Rowell's maps, drawn with the best will in the world based on remembrance of what had occurred, because the actual record was destroyed. Now we are revisiting them critically without the need to "press on" so as to prosecute a particular theory, we should re-evaluate evidence.
Busch:

“In Busch's English language The Story of the Prince Eugen (1958) we have
The range was now changing as the British, obeying the last signal of their flagship to open the range, were caught while turning to port, and suddenly steered hard to starboard and towards the Germans, in order to avoid the wreckage of their badly hit comrade”
Hunter-Terry says debris was falling whilst PoW was turning to port. Since the guns, turrets and masts described by other witnesses would not have stayed in the air for very long, seconds after Hood’s explosion at, nominally 06:00, PoW was turning , not to starboard, but to port seconds after 06:00. Leach had to over-ride this turn with another hard turn to starboard, just as described by the witnesses.
Coates:
I saw the "Hood" on our port bow and I saw several salvoes fall astern, just over and ahead. Then one salvo appeared to strike right amidships. I got the impression of a shower of sparks on the boat-deck not far abaft the after funnel about mid-ships. It was followed then by one roll of flame from the after screen which enveloped the after turrets. After that I did not see very much of the subsequent explosion because we had had a hit on the starboard crane which knocked me down. As I got up the "Hood" had disappeared from sight. I do not mean she was sunk, but was obscured by our superstructure. I did not see the explosion. All I saw was the reflection on our own ship. I saw the "Hood" again. I came down off the catapult control platform and we carried on steaming ahead of the "Hood", and all I recognised was the bows forepart. They appeared to be turned completely round.
As was discussed some time ago Coates' view of Hood could only become obscured by PoW's superstructure if his ship was turning to port already, before the avoidance turn to starboard, exactly as described by Brookes, and as shown on Reimann's plan derived from the ranges from PG's gunnery system albeit with a value offset.


It is only the "evidence", such as it is, of Y turret's ability to continuously track the target from salvo 9 onwards which contradicts these course changes. The witnesses, British and German are all consistent. PoW turned to port to follow Hood, then had to turn to starboard to avoid her wreck. Leach and Rowell had a life changing experience just a few moments later which might have affected their perceptions, short term memory loss is a common effect of violent trauma I believe.

We have the evidence of the number of rounds fired by each gun, including Y turret, which should be reproduced again here, together with the latest speculative (I believe there is no direct evidence of which gun fired on which salvo) table, based around the perception that 74 guns were able to bear on the target at some time during the engagement. I am unclear as to where the evidence comes from for McMullen to state this. Does the AFCT paper output provide a record of which guns are bearing on the target through time, as well as report of being loaded? The Excel table which has been generated works on the basis that guns remain in their designated groups even though they may have reloaded long before the other group is even ordered to fire. At some point, when the target is bracketed, rapid fire is ordered, guns are loaded as quickly as possible and fired and the ordered grouping presumably breaks down in order to put as many shots on target as possible.


At its simplest, the evidence that Y turret bore on Bismarck continuously from the ninth salvo onwards is based entirely on assumptions about British firing procedure, and it is possible that A arcs were closed again by a hard turn to starboard, and re-opened again , some time after Hood's destruction.


Hello Antonio, i notice the Gefechtsskizze records the British sighting report. At what time on the German track?

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,

I'm afraid that we are back, with "ad hoc" selected statements of picked out witnesses (otherwise considered unreliable, when stating annoying things), instead of starting working on the available official precise documents already listed and apparently agreed (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&hilit=evidence ... 105#p81418) to move forward in reconstructing the battlemap....

Wadinga wrote_: "Part of the debate here has for several years doubted the veracity of Rowell's maps, drawn with the best will in the world based on remembrance of what had occurred"
The map (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... Wtrack.jpg) is "veracious" enough because it matches perfectly Leach's official report, describing (based on "remembrance of what had occurred", as all reports in the world, and as all the other oral or written (years later) accounts as well) all the turns ordered by BC1 and their associated timing:

Leach_PoW_turns.jpg
Leach_PoW_turns.jpg (61.02 KiB) Viewed 2198 times

It is also very similar to the salvo plot (that only doesn't show any turn against the enemy because it did not really affect the gunnery geometry).

If anyone prefers to build a battlemap using accounts from selected witnesses instead of these official evidences, please be so kind to propose an alternative track to work on, not only to highlight the discrepancies of these accounts versus the official map.



Wadinga wrote: "I am unclear as to where the evidence comes from for McMullen to state this"
We don't really need to know where they come from (even if it is an interesting aspect about the AFCT functioning).

They are part of an official report, written by the gunnery senior officer onboard who had no "life changing experience just a few moments later" and who was therefore surely able to write a credible report, that is actually quite detailed and perfectly matching the attached salvo plot (that itself almost perfectly matches the PoW official map prepared by the "shocked" navigating officer...).
McMullen report is clear enough about the fact that Y turret fired only after the 9th salvo (as explicitly written in the salvo plot) and easy mathematics confirm it (see viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81455&hilit=Barben#p81455 and please propose another way to read it, in case not yet convinced by the figures, but possibly based on British Firing Procedures, not speculating about a "chaotic" way of firing any gun ready to fire, at least while in central control).

In addition, as further confirmation (if really needed...and I don't think it is needed), we have also, from Churchill Archives, the report (dated June 1st, 1941) from Mr.Barben (Vickers Armaments foreman on board PoW during the engagement) confirming that "Y turret bore on the target for the last 10 salvos only" (attachment to a report of Mr.Wilkinson, director at Vickers Armaments). Last 10 salvos means 18 total salvos (Barben is speaking about the centrally directed salvos in his report, ignoring the locally directed ones) minus the 8 salvos lost at the beginning (due to Y turret not bearing yet or simply not yet used to avoid self-inflicted damages firing at high elevation over the aft superstructure).

In the same way, Hood was not yet using his aft turrets before the first turn to port , despite geometry did allow their usage for a ship like Hood, that had only 30° blind angle fore, already on course 300°, albeit at almost extreme bearing.

To make the long story short, Y turret fired continuously from 5:58 till 6:02, no "avoiding maneuver" preventing it to bear on enemy at any time.


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,
To make the long story short, Y turret fired continuously from 5:58 till 6:02,
I thought we were now working with evidence not assertions. Just saying a thing, even if underlined does not make it true. Typing it in giant bold letters won't make it true either, so let's not bother.

This statement is not even apparently supported by Barben's report although I would like to see a direct quote plus context. Bearing on something is not firing on it. Does Barben say Y turret fired on every one of the last ten salvoes?

"Y turret bore on the target for the last 10 salvos only"



Even Antonio is now prepared to consider that the salvo plot and the map might be wrong and the turn did not happen when drawn, but instead before the 9th salvo that is two and a half minutes after it is drawn, as Herr Nilsson has very reasonably speculated. This would mean that Leach's report is wrong.
"veracious" enough because it matches perfectly Leach's official report

Which is sensible because if PoW had travelled in a straight line since 05:55 her A arcs would have been open then.


I also would like to know the context of the report of the number of rounds fired per gun. What would be the point of only mentioning rounds fired in the centrally-controlled period and leaving out those fired under local control? Total rounds fired is total rounds fired, it doesn't matter who pulled the trigger.

It is also very similar to the salvo plot (that only doesn't show any turn against the enemy because it did not really affect the gunnery geometry)

Somebody decided whether turns were significant before drawing the map?

I'm afraid that we are back, with "ad hoc" selected statements of picked out witnesses (otherwise considered unreliable, when stating annoying things).
Brinkman, Leach, Rowell, Jasper, Reimann and Brooke all describe PoW turning hard towards the Germans. Hardly selected, hardly Ad Hoc. Busch, Reimann, Coates and Hunter-Terry describe PoW turning to port to follow Hood. Rowell's maps are just wrong, which is understandable. If the ARL table plot had survived Rowell's map would be based on something better than his memory created seconds before he was blasted by an incoming shell and severely injured. The action plot on tracing paper at Kew drawn before PoW docked is schematic straight lines and French curve turns only, just a "best guess", and the two maps for the enquiry were generated months afterwards using it as a guide.


Let's stick with the evidence and leave unwarranted assertions underlined or otherwise out of it.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Byron Angel »

A comparison of the McMullen salvo plot and Leach’s action report shows several apparent discrepancies in recorded event times –

Opening of Prince of Wales’ A arcs
> Leach – “A turn of 2 blue at 0555 opened "A" Arcs at "Prince of Wales" ninth salvo.
> McMullen salvo plot shows salvo 9 fired at approx. 0557:45.

Hood explosion
> Leach – “…at 0600, just after "Bismarck's" 5th salvo, a huge explosion occurred between "Hood's" after funnel and mainmast …”.
> McMullen salvo plot seems to show Hood as being “out of action” around the 0556 mark.

Hit on compass platform of Prince of Wales
> Leach – “…at 0602 compass platform was hit”.
> McMullen salvo plot shows Prince of Wales already about 45 degrees through her port disengagement turn away at the 0602 mark.

Puzzling.

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: "Does Barben say Y turret fired on every one of the last ten salvoes? "
Please read again...make calculation and finally accept what McMullen and Barben say.viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81455&hilit=Barben#p81455. If in disagreement, please present an alternative to my calculation. How did McMullen get 74 as ordered shots figure ?

Y turret started firing at salvo 9 and never stopped until salvo 18 (as 74 ordered shots in 18 salvos demonstrate mathematically, confirmed by PoW salvo plot and by Mr.Barben). I'm deeply sorry, no way to counter this evidence.

Why a delay of 2 minutes after the turn? We can only speculate (I have given my 3 options, I do support n.3).
Why the "Hood out of action" annotation ? We can only speculate (I guess it means Hood not firing in G.I.C. mode any more).
Why many said PoW turned sharply after 6:00 ? We don't know (I proposed my view, a turn and a counter-turn, not affecting the course).
Why did Hood not fire her aft turrets since open fire, when geometry would have allowed ? (my guess is to avoid self-inflicted damages).

Many, many other questions will remain open forever, but we should work on points that are 100% sure (and the salvo plot is), not on "guesses" and all the above (interesting) aspects are not in discussion here now.


Re. the authoritative witnesses Mr.Wadinga now is ready to trust:
Brinkmann says Hood was coming from South, while PoW was coming together with Norfolk from North: should we trust him?
Leach said he had few 5 guns in action when retreating: we know he was wrong.
Rowell and Hunter-Terry say it was Bismarck to hit Hood on the boat deck: Jasper tells us that it was PG looking at his own fall of shots.
Jasper thought he was fighting crusers: we know he was in error.
Reimann thought distance was 4000 meters longer that in reality: are we ready to adopt his distances (please present an alternative track...)
Busch said that Suffolk (pardon "a mast"...) was at 176 hm on true bearing 15° at around 5:30: is Mr.Wadinga ready to accept also this ?
Coates says that Hoodnever fired her aft turrets at all: should we trust him ?
....


Let's stick to selected and agreed evidences, not to randomly chosen accounts, as agreed, please.

Where is the alternative track / "starting point" to Antonio's proposed one at 6:00 ? Is everybody in agreement with them and with his cross-checked bearings ? This is the only point to be discussed here.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:47 am, edited 12 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ all,

may I kindly ask everybody to hold on any discussion about what happened after 06:00 and how many shells PoW fired from which turret until we have jointly agreed and finished re-constructing the tracks.

If we put too much meat on the fireplace, we will obviously loose focus and attention to the main subject of this discussion that in this moment are the tracks and the correct battlefield area determination.

Wadinga asked me :
Hello Antonio, I notice the Gefechtsskizze records the British sighting report. At what time on the German track ?
The timing on the map is 05:43 and the line is correctly a 157° True bearing traced line. The note aside the line is mentioning a British intercepted message by B-Dienst ( enemy decoded radio message ) and in fact is stating : 05:43 in 337° - 17 sm.

As I wrote already on my 2005 article that demonstrate the fact that on board Prinz Eugen the decoders got the Hood enemy in sight radio report I have attached above, because they used the true bearing of the Hood and sea miles, instead of their own opposite true bearing 157° and the distance measured in hectometers like they did on all the other distance evaluations they made.

Back in the subject that is surely another match at 05:43 anyway, ... because 337° is just the opposite of 157° as said.

The 157° is one of the 3 bearings that F.O. Busch wrote on his 1943 book being reported at around 05:30 battle time from Kpt Brinkmann to Adm Lutjens. The other 2 true bearings were 96° which was the Norfolk ( will declare soon the opposite bearing been 276° on his own enemy in sight radio message ) and the Suffolk at 15° ( will report the opposite 195° to the enemy, which is the opposite ).

My point of bringing forward the Herr Nillson PoW track evaluation, was just to suggest to carefully look the turns made by PoW as far as their shape and amount of time taken to do it is concerned, not the sequence of the events that is quite precisely reconstructed on the available accounts.

Again, I am more interested on the tracks until 06:00 most precise re-construction now then anything else, ... we will have time after to see once again what happened after the Hood explosion.

The BC1 change of course is well reported, we just need to put it down versus the 220° of the Germans and have the main available and reported 4 bearings we have at hand matching the overall geometrical figure the best we can.

It is not a difficult geometrical exercise and of course the agreed tolerances will help us, ... but it needs to be done at first.

I have already done it time ago just following David Mearns approach, the one that from Commander Warrand last reported Hood geographical position enabled him to find the Hood wreck, consequently it is correct for sure.

I like now this team to do it and agree about it too, so we will have the correct battlefield overview to refer to later on.

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: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:54 am Many, many other questions will remain open forever, but we should work on points that are 100% sure (and the salvo plot is), not on "guesses".
IMHO the salvo plot just represents the ordered course, the time of the order to change course and possibly the ordered speed. It does not contain information about drift caused by currents, real speed (above all loss of speed) and the track between the order (+ delay) and PoW is on the ordered course again.

IMHO is impossible that PoW was able to make the turn between 0620 and 0633 the way it is drawn. This turn would cause a considerable loss of speed which is totally missing. The same applies to the time between 0600 and 0606.

IMHO the track of the salvo plot can't be used in combination with Suffolk's, Norfolk's and Prinz Eugen's tracks. It's a totally different kind of map.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
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,
Herr Nilsson wrote: "It's a totally different kind of map."
No, it's still a good map (perfectly matching Leach narrative), usable to build Antonio's proposed one with just a possible minor "rounding" of 20° (!) turns during the battle..., and the final result will be the same.
However I agree on the shape of turns being too sharp in PoW map and possibly needing re-shaping. Please provide the "alternative". For the time being I see only Antonio and Mr.Jurens trying to build a track...

Antonio is proposing to use the existing bearing to fix some points and to then do the above refinement.


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 »

Thank you for clarifying something.
The 157° is one of the 3 bearings that F.O. Busch wrote on his 1943 book being reported at around 05:30 battle time from Kpt Brinkmann to Adm Lutjens. The other 2 true bearings were 96° which was the Norfolk ( will declare soon the opposite bearing been 276° on his own enemy in sight radio message ) and the Suffolk at 15° ( will report the opposite 195° to the enemy, which is the opposite ).
Brinkman apparently includes the bearings of things not seen from PG on the Gefechtsskizze. There is no suggestion the unit reporting 17 miles on 337T was seen from PG, the line is merely drawn to intersect the correct time on PG's track. It is 157T not because it is corroborated independently from PG's own observation, but merely the result of drawing the British sighting report and deriving a reciprocal. Why does he draw Suffolk's bearing? Only because he has intercepted her sighting report, drawn it in and derived an imagined bearing to her. No wonder the bearing coincides exactly with Suffolk's report, it is calculated from it.


Busch backdates 05:30 for a timing and we know this because the only place 157 can come from is BC1's sighting report from 13 minutes later. Where Busch gets his mast and distance from for the contact off PG's starboard quarter is anybody's guess, the bearing also comes from Suffolk's report. He has also backdated a calculated bearing for Norfolk from

( will declare soon the opposite bearing been 276° on his own enemy in sight radio message )

Then we come to Norfolk. On the Gefechtsskizze she is depicted in company with KG V whereas we know they were far apart. Because Brinkmann is drawing in assumed positions he has confused Norfolk's K3G call sign with KG V.

All Busch's wonderfully correlated bearings are clearly fabricated being merely reciprocals of the intercepted British reports, and some of which are put on the Gefechtsskizze. In the PG KTB BC1 smoke trails are not even seen and logged until 05:47.


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 »

.... of course when things don't match exactly it's a serious contradiction, when they match perfectly it's just... a carbon copy... too easy, I would say.

PG had her own RDF apparatus when intercepting the British messages, giving her the bearing of the radio source to be cross-checked before sending a "fake" info to Lutjens.

Luckily, at 6:00, we don't have carbon copy bearings and the map can be built starting from this point.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ all,

I just see the bearings being the most reliable information we have to build this battle map.

We have now a good and hopefully agreed starting point at 06:00.

Building the tracks backwards, with known course and speed while drawing acceptable turns for BC1 warships, ... while checking the bearings with the available information is what we can do to define with an acceptable tolerance this battle field.

This will for sure eliminate a dozen of impossible battle maps made on the last 77 years about this battle.

It is really possible and fairly easy to build it from 05:37 until 06:00, ... and I do not see the reason why we cannot reach a defined map and a shared general consensus and agreement about it.

It is just a geometrical figure with known parameters ( angles ) to be adjusted for tolerances, ... and nothing else.

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

Regarding the rather recent, though welcome, flurry of postings...

My own sense of the situation would be to proceed fairly slowly, i.e. to -- as Mr. Bonomi has suggested as well -- to try to concentrate on just one specific issue at a time. I think it best to begin by trying to obtain some sort of reasonable and general consensus on the possibility of constructing an overall track chart. Delving at depth into into further details is somewhat pointless until we all -- or at least most of us -- have agreed upon a single overall picture.

Linking the British and German track charts together would necessarily involve collating various observations made at different times by observers on both sides, and assessing as best we can, the weight that should be given to each set of ranges, bearings, and times. In that regard, Mr. Bonomi has supplied what appears to be a reasonable set of these some time back in this thread, although I am not sure that others have been able to fully assess them yet. I know that I have not, though I am working on it as often as possible. For what it's worth, that doesn't imply that anyone need wait for me, i.e. my observations should in any way be considered as representing some sort of 'final judgment.

I am discouraged to see that some participants continue, perhaps inadvertently, to slip back into a more accusative and argumentative tone. This slows things down immensely. In that regard, I would again ask that participants refrain, as much as possible, from 'editorializing''. One example of this is implying that one set of figures/observations etc. are "irrefutable' or extremely clear. This simply implies, in a somewhat backhand manner, that those that disagree are somewhat stupid. If they ARE actually stupid or ill-informed, that will reveal itself soon enough via their replies, or lack thereof. It need not be implied beforehand.

I would also suggest that we as much as possible refrain from mixing, as it were, various issues, i.e. discussing attempting to address more than one issue in a single post, and -- along similar lines -- to try to refrain from posting a snowstorm of objections to a given proposal. One point of refutation at a time, particularly if it is a strong one, should be sufficient. If that one works, the others are redundant. If the original argument can be refuted, then it's perhaps time to move on to argument number two. Discussing one point at a time will enable us to focus more clearly on the immediate task at hand, hopefully clearing that up, one way or another, before moving on to further points of disagreement.

Along similar lines, I'd be cautious in believing that multiple sources, or similar quotes from multiple sources, necessarily bolster the argument at hand. That indeed might be the case, but is only the case if the sources are really multiple independent sources and not just repetitions and rephrasing of material presented elsewhere. Someone recently pointed out that some of the bearings and distances on the German track chart may really represent information added on from other sources rather than representing original observations. Sorting this out may be difficult. A second problem tends to occur when a track chart is made, and others comment upon it later, apparently confirming the veracity of the original data. Again, that's only true if the subsequent commentary is really independent. If the track chart says "X,Y, and Z" at some particular point, and other authors repeat these figures, the additional quotes would only count as confirmation if they are truly independent observations, not just a result of repetition, i.e. of a subsequent author simply looking at the track chart and quoting it.
It's often very difficult to tell exactly in what way many of these sorts of documents were actually generated. Much is made, for instance, of the Rowell chart, but it's unclear -- and at this remove will probably always remain unclear -- exactly how much of this chart can be attributed to Rowell as a pure source, and how much might represent some sort of amalgam that was assembled after discussion with various and sundry additional participants. Does the chart represent Rowell talking, someone talking through Rowell, or some sort of amalgam of ideas coming from a variety of sources.

Let's try to keep the work being done on track and by all means try to keep the heat down.

Best to all...

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 Mr.Jurens,
I agree on all what you say, and I will try to avoid to use terms like "irrefutable" when not unavoidable (I guess that 90-74=16=8*2 is irrefutable and crystal clear, cannot be countered and should also be acknowledged by everybody, that has not been the case up to now).

I do hope that your request to stay on topic and to raise one issue at a time will be understood, digested and followed strictly as well, but after a polite discussion on a specific topic, I would also expect everybody to agree (or to disagree explicitly having with some arguments/alternatives), not to change topic all the time when evidently wrong.
Unfortunately there will be no way to agree on everything: however, when something is clearly wrong or right, everybody should be honest enough to admit it.


As you correctly said,
"Mr. Bonomi has supplied what appears to be a reasonable set of these some time back in this thread, although I am not sure that others have been able to fully assess them yet."
I was, and I'm still waiting for all the others to assess them (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&hilit=evidence ... 105#p81418), in order to move forward. However, I have seen no progress in this direction yet.


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 »

We are doing well, but -- and this is, I think inherent to this sort of forum -- sometimes much patience is required in order to allow readers to actually examine the evidence and respond in a coherent manner. One can't try to do too many things at once -- even doing only one is challenging enough. Trying to simultaneously resolve a number of unresolved questions on the forum often just results in confusion.

I don't think we have really heard back from enough correspondents yet to really establish with any degree of certainty that all agree -- or at least mostly agree -- on the linking of the two track charts. I'd suggest we give another few days at least. Trying to tackle other issues prematurely while one still remains 'on the table' and open to commentary, probably only serves to confuse the issue.

In that regard, I'd invite other readers to comment upon Mr. Bonomi's proposed overall linking of the track charts, putting aside for now discussions and debates around relatively small detail such as the precise manner of turns made after Hood exploded.

Just my ideas...

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,


We have been analysing and critiquing these listed sources for many years, and have already identified many shortcomings, even in terms of bearings alone. Being asked to accept them again, as if all the information in them was beyond reproach is not possible.

We have recently identified that the few comments made by Jasper about gunnery matters in the PG KTB were apparently supplanted by a much more detailed report, about which we have all been wished good luck in finding it, without a definite confirmation that no-one posting here has indeed got it in their possession. This would be as important as McMullen's GAR if it remains to be found. There are also disappointingly evasive observations about another Jasper communication direct with Raeder, which may be a significant document.
Prinz Eugen im estern gefecht ( F.O. Busch 1943 book ) - German squadron relative positioning and early battle stage bearings
Should not be held up as a reliable source of early-battle bearings. These were already suspiciously correct, except for the wrong time when they were first presented. Now looking at Brinkmann's drawing of bearings based solely on calculated reciprocals of intercepted British signals on the Gefechtsskizze, we can see where these spurious confirmations came from. They were given to Busch by Brinkmann in an astonishing breach of security, giving information about B-Dienst's ability to read the enemy's coded signals in real time, to a popular writer. It even explains the spurious information about a "mast" and associated range, since publishing such accurate detail in a 1943 book, might give the enemy an inkling that his signals were being read. So we see the invention of an imaginary mast and spurious range to disguise the source of the information.


We assume that some enemy bearings on the Gefechtsskizze and Reimann's are real measurements from PG's main gunnery system. The latter may include important range information, albeit with a fixed offset from reality.

Jasper's input to the KTB tells us nothing useful about bearings, incomprehensibly mentioning "two contacts off the right bow " 020". The nearest I can guess it might mean two contacts 20 degrees ahead of the left beam. The words recorded and submitted as part of an official report make no sense. His other contribution to bearings is to say PG turned so far away from the enemy at the 28th salvo that the forward station could no longer bear, but that firing continued after this time. The only time such a manoeuvre is represented on the Gefechtsskizze is at 06:15-18, long after firing finished. This raises very serious questions over the timing representations on the Gefechtsskizze.

Whatever the bearings presented, there is a lot to be evaluated in terms of timing. It cannot be stressed enough, as many here have before, that written log timings may not accurately reflect when events occurred. This is not computer time-stamping. It is significant that the PG KTB confirms the British open fire time, leading to increased confidence in the British salvo timing despite Rowell's disclaimer.


All the best

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