Bismarck at DS after the second turn

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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,

@ Jose Rico,

having a " Super Partes " moderator in this forum is a great idea Jose'.

If we were having that kind of a moderator in this forum on the last years several persons were not going to be writing here in since a long time.

I am sure Bill Jurens will do a great job with a " no side taken " approach and that is just what we missed here in lately.

Looking forward to see sarcasm, intentional provocations and offenses to disappear finally, so there will be no more need to reply to defend ourselves.


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
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 »

@ Jose Rico:
great idea. I believe Mr.Jurens could play this role.

Let's see if this way knowledgeable people can start again discussing facts and evidences in order to reconstruct the battle, instead of insulting and mocking without any contribution. From my side, I will behave as requested, leaving the moderator to stop any future intemperance.


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

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello All,

Bill Jurens as moderator. A splendid turn of events. Uniquely qualified and even better a volunteer.
I might suggest, as a stepping off point that the re-construction of the track chart would require successive agreements upon the relative position, speed and course for each ship in the action at successive times. Thus, given any time 't', we would have, for each ship of interest, a value of course 'c', a value of speed 's', and values of relative bearing "rb" and distance 'd' for at least three other vessels.

Can I suggest that we start in reverse by attempting to establish minimum range and timing for the combatants and then work backwards. I think we can all accept that the estimated 17 mile sighting range is unmeasurable and therefore certainly inaccurate. Therefore working forward from unknown start locations gives major problems.


All the best

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

@ Bill Jurens,

since it seems to me that you have been elected " coram populo" moderator of this forum and now we can restart talking about something productive in a more reasonable way, here is my proposal on how to proceed.

I think is reasonable to start from your 2002 map Bill, ... so nobody should have anything to complain about, ... having been done after the Paul Schmalenbach 1978 one, ... and before my 2005 one, ... even if in line of principle shows exactly what the other 2 maps I have listed shows.

This one :
DS_2002_battle_map.jpg
DS_2002_battle_map.jpg (26.5 KiB) Viewed 1683 times
As far as the process of improving it goes, ... I have this suggestion, ... to substitute to your low scale/definition tracks on the above map, ... the Prinz Eugen original track from his own battle map, ... and the PoW original track from his own maps ( more than one available here = need to realize a reliable one for the various turns ).

My suggested point of synchronization( bearing and timing ) for the above listed 2 tracks will be initially starting from the 06:00 battle time for several reasons.

1) We have the Rowell map showing it precisely and connecting Bismarck with Hood, PoW ( bearing and distances ) when Hood exploded.

It is the second map on this link :

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm

ADM_234-509_EncIosure_B.gif
(38.67 KiB) Not downloaded yet

2) We can use the Sigurd Reimann ( PG torpedo officer ) map to connect ( bearing only, no distances) the Prinz Eugen original track with the PoW original track.

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

This way we can produce a good enough initial reference map in a big enough common scale as a starter for the main 4 warships involved.

Let me have your opinion about it.

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello All,
My suggested point of synchronization( bearing and timing ) for the above listed 2 tracks will be initially starting from the 06:00 battle time for several reasons.
We can use the Sigurd Reimann ( PG torpedo officer ) map to connect ( bearing only, no distances)
Am I correct in reading that both the Gefechtsskizze map and the Reimann agree that the distance at 06:00 is 197 hectometres (21,544 yds) to PoW? This value is at extreme odds with the claimed hitting range of PoW at about that time of 16,450 yds, IF and it is a big IF the salvo plot times are correct. Rowell says they may be 2 minutes out relative to chronometer time. Is this the reason for discounting the German ranges as incorrect?

On the Gefechtsskizze the bearing to PoW is about 140T and on Reimann's about 145T. PoW's bearing at the same recorded time is 330T the reciprocal of which is 150T. Since PoW is shooting at Bismarck the reciprocal bearing discrepancy of either 5 or 10 degrees implies a 1400 or 2900 yd lateral difference at the 16,450 yd range.

Strangely, despite the PG proceeding apparently on an arrow straight 220T at 28 kts almost at right angles across the bearing to the enemy, whilst PoW is steaming firstly towards the Germans and then turns violently away, the bearing recorded by Reimann hardly reduces at all. PoW should be losing bearing massively if PG steamed in a straight line as depicted.


All the best

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

OK, Bill Jurens will be board moderator.
I will make an announcement soon.
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,

when someone likes to read Ltnt Sigurd Reimann map ( Prinz Eugen Torpedo Officer ), ... first of all has to be sure that the page he is looking at is correctly oriented and the Prinz Eugen track is correctly showed at 220° True course, ... otherwise it only means that the person who took the map scan of that page did not do a good enough job and that page/map is just incorrectly oriented.

VizeAdm Hubert Schmundt told Kpt Brinkmann that his battle map was useless and worthless to determine his distances to the enemy and that he should have redone that map taking the distances from the computing station ( PG Gunnery Officer - Ltnt P. Jasper data ) because they did not match.
Here VizeAdm Hubert Schmundt statement :
The position of "Prinz Eugen" in relation to "Prince of Wales" cannot be derived from the battle sketch. It is useless and worthless. The ship is herewith directed to resubmit a new battle sketch that is based on the actual data provided by the computing station, and in the future, [PG is admonished] to pay greater attention to the preparation of battle sketches.
Similarly Ltnt Sigurd Reimann had to justify his missing launch of the Prinz Eugen torpedoes because he was evaluating incorrectly the distances, not having a dedicated rangefinder, this is the reason why his map is correct for bearings, ... but surely not for the measured distances for his own admission in writing to VizeAdm Schmundt, ... just as I have wrote above anticipating the problem.

Not very difficult to realize the above, ... and I told everybody about it something like 15 years ago.

The only reliable distances between Prinz Eugen and the enemy are the ones contained into Ltnt Paulus Jasper report, ... according to VizeAdm Hubert Schmundt.

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,
first of all has to be sure that the page he is looking at is correctly oriented and the Prinz Eugen track is correctly showed at 220° True course,

and since you provided an except from your own colour scan you are the best person to confirm this. I have only access to the scanned versions on the Hood site but the difference in bearing to PoW appears to be real. With access to better material you can confirm or otherwise. Or one can measure the angle between the sighting line and PG's course on each map to derive relative bearings. Do you agree on the 5 degree discrepancy?


The limited number of range references in the Jasper report included in the PG KTB suggest minimum range was achieved at 05:59 was 160-170 hectometres which corresponds well with PoW estimated range, if the timings are correct.

All the best

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

Following the new mood that we all must keep/restart from now on on this forum, I give up any previous attitude and restart answering to everybody.

@ Wadinga,

you asked :
Do you agree on the 5 degree discrepancy?
The correct anwer is no, I disagree.

The Prinz Eugen maps available at the Bundesarchiv are the original and of course I have ordered and have on my archive all the PG maps original color copies in high quality.

The Reimann map and the Prinz Eugen original battle map are of course 2 different sheet of paper and both do have traced on them the South to North indication.

Once you establish the correct 0-360° reference N, you can measure Prinz Eugen course and the bearings toward the PoW.

On the Prinz Eugen battle map the course is 220° and the bearing between PG and PoW at 06:00 marks is 142°.

On the Reimann Torpedo map the PG course is 222° and the bearing between PG and PoW at 06:00 marks is 145°.
Once you rotate 2° left the map, the PG course becomes 220° and the bearing to PoW becomes 143°, ... almost matching perfectly the own battle map.

You wrote :
The limited number of range references in the Jasper report included in the PG KTB suggest minimum range was achieved at 05:59 was 160-170 hectometers which corresponds well with PoW estimated range, if the timings are correct.
That is correct for 05:59. After it we have another Jasper input at 06:02-06:03 of about 140 hectometers distance, that was the closest point with the PoW before the turn to starboard by the Prinz Eugen.

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Since I could see no North representation or geographic grid (or scale) on the scan of Reimann's sketch and since it copies the apparent error of the Gefechtsskizze in the 06:00 range value, your suggestion of rotating it to align with heading 220T seems very sensible, since one is based on the other. Have you measured all the ranges on Reimann's sketch to prove they are drawn to a common scale giving their version of the path of PoW? These ranges came from somewhere and considering the high and mighty of the Kriegsmarine were breathing down their necks, it would be surprising if these values were not verified before submission.
because he was evaluating incorrectly the distances, not having a dedicated rangefinder
Prinz Eugen's rangefinders and fire control had switched to PoW as target as required, and as has been mentioned several times, this solution was available to other weapons systems. However the torpedo system forecasting future position needed to cope with many minutes weapon travel time rather than a few seconds as with gunnery. The variation in inclination and therefore future course forecast were what made Reimann's job impossible since PoW was changing course hard and frequently before she eventually turned away.
The only reliable distances between Prinz Eugen and the enemy are the ones contained into Ltnt Paulus Jasper report, ... according to VizeAdm Hubert Schmundt.
Jasper's report says the range came down from 160-170 to 140 ie 2-3 km in 3-4 minutes. Since PG had apparently not changed her course that means PoW was still on a strongly converging course until 06:02-3.

I cannot see how Admiral Schmundt can know what ranges are valid at an action he wasn't present at. Presumably there was a more detailed Jasper report, akin to the PoW gunnery report, which has not come to light, which looked more valid than either the Gefechtsskizze or Reimann's sketch. . The other thing that has not come to light is that new battle sketch required by Schmundt.

All the best

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

@ Wadinga,

you wrote :
Since I could see no North representation or geographic grid (or scale) on the scan of Reimann's sketch and since it copies the apparent error of the Gefechtsskizze in the 06:00 range value, your suggestion of rotating it to align with heading 220T seems very sensible, since one is based on the other.
I agree, Reimann torpedo map was based on Prinz Eugen bridge ( Brinkmann ) data and battle map distances.
To confirm it is enough to realize the common 197 hectometers evaluated at 06:00. Both have this incorrect distance provided at 06:00.

Jasper data are the correct ones, around 4100 meters short, it is enough to check the 05:55 Reimann/Brinkmann 243 hectometers vs Hood and Jasper with 202 hectometers at open fire on his own report. Difference between them was 41 hectometers = 4100 meters.

Same story at 06:02 and 06:03, ... 182 and 180 hectometers for Reimann and only 140 hectometers for Jasper, once again just 4100 meters shorter distance for Jasper and he was hitting the enemy, both Hood at 05:57 as well as PoW after 05:59 and before 06:04.

Schmundt knew it and had on his hands all maps and data. Not a surprise what he wrote after to Brinkmann complaining about his distances evaluation versus PoW as logic consequence.

To realize why Reimann drew that PoW track is enough to read his report where he explained that he was realizing just the opposite of what Jasper was realizing as far as what PoW was doing, and we can see the result on his sketch. Jasper was correct as we all know and Reimann was consequently incorrect as we can easily see on his torpedo map.

Anyway, both Reimann as well as Brinkmann drew a very bad enemy track. Same occurred on the PoW maps for the Bismarck.

Just as Bill Jurens wisely suggested, and I have realized 15 years ago, it is better to use German maps for PG and Bismarck tracks and British maps for PoW and Hood tracks obviously. The same I am doing for Norfolk and Suffolk tracks out of the plot adjusting them for known bearings only to the other warships on the battlefield.

Last, I have not yet found Jasper data plot which I think does exist somewhere in the German archives, same goes for an eventual new PG battle map redone by Brinkmann with the correct Jasper distances from the PG computing station.
Hans Henning von Schultz coud not help me on those researches.
He did not remember having done anything like that for Schmundt, and he was in charge to satisfy his request on behalf of Brinkmann.
His priority was to write the Bismarck war diary ( reconstructed ).

Basically we can realize that Prinz Eugen was at around 150 hectometers ( 15.000 meters ) at 06:00 having PoW on bearing 143°.

Bismarck was at 16.300 yards = 14.904 meters ( 149 hectometers ) from PoW having her at 150° ( opposite of 330° ), reference Rowell map, a bit more distant at 16.450 yards for McMullen.

The above once drew on Rowell map will show Prinz Eugen ahead of Bismarck of something like 1800 meters, with Bismarck following Prinz Eugen in line of battle.

It reminds me of Schmitz-Westerholt carbon sketch image, ... and this is the reason why I am using it since many years.

But it is not a scoop, ... because many years before me somebody else at high level present on the battle did the same using it.

But not many knows about the way it was done, ... one everybody will know.

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: 876
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

This seems, so far, to be proceeding along very productive lines. Let's all try very hard to keep up the good work and the positive attitudes.

I think, for what it is worth, that taking the reconstruction step-by-step in the way it seems to be going now, is probably a good one. Then, as we encounter discrepancies and disagreements, we can (one hopes) resolve these in the most satisfactory manner before moving on.

I think it best for the participants so far to simply continue along the paths recently established, using their best judgments -- one hopes collective judgments -- as to exactly when and in which direction to proceed at any particular time.

It would appear that we are well on our way to establishing, with some reasonable consensus, the German course(s) (though not necessarily speeds) during the immediate preamble to the action itself. Presumably we can, in due course (no pun intended) establish a similar consensus regarding British courses and speeds as well. Unfortunately, for various reasons, it appears that neither side was able to keep very precise records of maneuvers from the ten minute or so period after 0:600 when Hood exploded.

The next step, overall, would seem to be to then attempt to bring the British and German track charts, as we best understand them, into a relative relationship, i.e. to link -- via yet-to-be determined means -- the two track charts together, at least in some general form, perhaps neglecting for the moment that the official track charts seem really only to represent with certainty, the positions of Prince of Wales and Prinz Eugen, the track charts of Bismarck and Hood being lost. If we can establish with some degree of consensus upon a few individual points where both British and German estimates of range and bearing are congruent, then it might thereafter be possible to interpolate, albeit with probably diminished confidence, various and sundry intermediate positions as well.

I think it best -- though I'm open to correction in that regard -- that we at least for the moment ignore any attempt to reconstruct the positions of accompanying British cruisers, etc. unless they can be shown for whatever reason(s) to solve the immediate problems at hand.

I'm very happy with the last few day's discussions...

Bill Jurens
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,

@ Bill Jurens,

there is nothing new so far, just only the acceptance of what has been the base of my 2005 reconstruction work.

Realizing that Brinkmann/Reimann distances were incorrect by far once compared to Jasper was not so difficult having VizeAdm Schmundt clear statements on the available reports.

The correct positioning process of the 4 warships at 06:00 I have explained is the center of the map I made on 2005 and now the available tracks of the Prinz Eugen and PoW can be easily positioned using those available reference marks.
ADM_234_509_ Exhibit_B_Rowell_map_0600_01.jpg
(90.67 KiB) Not downloaded yet
The final result for the main 4 warships positioning will be just the map I have realized on 2005.

Once that is done, all the available bearings including the Suffolk and Norfolk ones are useful to double check and verify the whole battle field scenario.
On today map, compared to my 2005 initial work, the 2 heavy cruisers positions are a lot changed and more precisely done.

The main control we need to make is the Bismarck track after the second turn, after 06:06, and this is the subject of this thread.
There are no maps or bearings that can be used, only the photo analysis can help there after having correctly positioned the PG film.

I am available to explain all is not sufficiently clear of course, no problems.

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

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by northcape »

Regarding maps and north directions, if existing POW and PG tracks should be synchronized:

Is it actually known to which north the original battlemaps are referenced?

For navigation and localization, there are three north references:

1) Magnetic North - I doubt that this will be a reference to any of the maps.
2) Geographic North: This is the one where the on-board gyrometers should be referenced to.
3) Grid north: This is the one where an actual map projection is referenced to. It depends on the type and parameters of the maps/charts used.

The difference between these three north references can amount from some to some tens of degrees. Difference between (1) and (2) can be easily found out for this location and date, but again I doubt that magnetic north is of any relevance here. Difference between (2) and (3) can only be figured out if the exact map projection is known.

Maybe this is all well known and already considered, but I'm just throwing it in.
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

Although it's usually quite easy to sort out the difference between true and magnetic bearings, there are other more subtle potential sources of error as well. To take one example, it's not entirely clear in some cases whether reported numbers refer to courses or headings. (The course is the path the ship is taking over the surface of the earth, while the heading is the direction in which the ship is pointed.) Just like aircraft, weather and current conditions, usually summarized as 'set and drift' mean that ships often travel in somewhat 'crabbed' orientations meaning that where the ship is going is not necessarily where the ship is pointed. So, although the course of the ship might be listed and ordered as (say) 220 degrees, the actual heading of the ship as read from the compass by a casual observer -- or someone trying to remember things a few days later -- might be 223 degrees. This sort of thing can throw off relative bearings as well, as a relative bearing from the course line would not be the same as a relative bearing taken from ship's fore-and-aft axis.

At 20000 yards, a bearing error of 1 degree equates to about 350 yards, so if the ship were yawed 1 degree and the relative bearing was only read to the nearest degree, a quick sum of squares would suggest an error more like 500.

Comments on this welcome...

Bill Jurens.
Post Reply