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: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:02 am

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

you asked :
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...
Here we go.

The British tracks plotting is perfect being based on Warrand data and David Mearns Hood wreck finding using those data.

Thanking Herr Nillson help, we have properly corrected my old 2005 map with a more precise set of evaluations:

1) Track in BLUE on top is PG at 28 knots by Herr Nillson ( marked Y in red ).

2) Track in RED down below shows PG at 27 knots by Herr Nillson ( marke X in red ).

Those demonstrate that Prinz Eugen was not running neither at 27 knots precisely ( will end up being too close to PoW at 06:00 ) or at 28 knots ( will end up being too far away at 06:00 ), but in between those 2 speed, more close to 28 than to 27 knots.

3) In order to match the 15.000 meter distance at 06:00 from PoW and correctly draw the Prinz Eugen track I have added the thick BLUE line I have marked V in red, that is resulting being very close to my old 2005 original track but now is very precisely calculated, and it is closer to PoW than before on my old 2005 map version.

4) To demonstrate that the Bismarck cannot be the warship identified at 05:37 on bearing 334°T from PoW I have added on top of it a VIOLET thick line starting on bearing 330° T at 06:00 and back 23 minutes at the same new speed of PG ( around 27, 8 knots ) and it will immediately result that will end up at 337°T bearing from PoW at 05:37 and consequently she cannot be the warship identified initially from PoW at first sight at 05:37.

Milestone Measurements_Marc_07.jpg
(113.99 KiB) Not downloaded yet

Now we can more precisely set the milestone new points 1, 2, 3 and 4 and move ahead, ... hopefully.

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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:24 pm

Hello everybody,

few data to make it easy to read the above map :

6,99 sea miles = 12.945 meters
8,41 sea miles = 15.575 meters
8,98 sea miles = 16.630 meters

10,35 sea miles = 19.168 meters
10,73 sea miles = 19.871 meters

17,34 sea miles = 32.113 meters
18,86 sea miles = 34.928 meters
19,43 sea miles = 35.984 meters

I made a more careful measurement in scale and the new thick BLUE line representing the Prinz Eugen I have traced at 14.900 meters from PoW at 06:00, is long 19.500 meters for the 23 minutes.

Bismarck on PoW salvo 13 that hit her was at 16.450 yards on 330°T = 15.041 meters.

We should be fairly close now to the whole scenario at 06:00, ... with very low tolerances.

Consequently for the Prinz Eugen, the 19.500/23 = 847,82 meters every minute which correspond to a speed of 27,47 knots, ... so 27,5 Knots more or less.
Current Prinz Eugen best estimate we have is 14.900 meters from PoW at 06:00 ( bearing 143°T -> 323°T from her ), sailing at 27,47 knots during the 23 minutes, ... from 05:37 until 06:00 and covering 19.500 meters distance.

Prinz Eugen being the warship at 334°T bearing from PoW at 05:37.

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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by dunmunro » Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:13 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:37 pm
Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

on December 2nd, 2018 I have posted :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=165#p81496

The bearing communicated at 05:44 from PoW was 335° T and not 325° T as you can read on the posted original messages.

Initial_bearings_BC1_to_German_squadron.jpg

It is the 3rd message I posted time ago when I started this demonstration with bearings A,B, C and D, ... later simplified on those 4 initial points, ... but still valid and confirmed of course.

You can put it is the way you like, ... those initial 4 points are correct between PG and PoW and Bismarck does not have anything to do with them.

Who knows when and if we were going ever to find Jasper bearings and gunnery map if ever made, ... meanwhile we do this job with what we have after a very careful and precise analysis as you can see.

Again, ... those 4 point reference are correct, ... and in fact there is nothing that can demonstrate them being not valid and reliable.

Bye Antonio
The 3rd message above states 335d but the Admiralty war diary states 325d.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:42 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

we all know it, and it was an incorrect input/transcription by the Admiralty.

Probably you have lost my explanation, ... referencing also Capt. J.C. Leach report too :
There was a long wait while the horizon became gradually more distinct and at last at 05:35 a suspicious object was sighted ( note : this was the Prinz Eugen on bearing 334°T )and an enemy report made at 05:37.

"Hood's" report followed immediately ( note : at 05:43 ). Enemy bore 335 degs (note : from PoW at 05:44 ) and was on an approx course of 240 degs., "Bismarck" astern of a lighter ship.

Course was altered 40 degs. by blue pendant at 05:37 and at 05:41 "Prince of Wales" was stationed on a bearing of 080 degs. ( note : from Hood )
From here :

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... #P391Leach

In any case, it was enough to evaluate the bearings from the PoW gunnery plot to realize that 325° between PoW and any of the 2 German squadron warship ( either Prinz Eugen or Bismarck ) was simply impossible at 05:44.

Last but not least, ... Hood enemy report at 05:43 to double confirm with her 337°T that the 325°T was impossible for the PoW a minute after ... and in fact it was a 335°T as transmitted from PoW.

The Admiralty log does have an erroneous value on it with enemy at 325°T from PoW at 05:44.

Hope now it is clear for everybody.

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

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

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:30 am

Hello Antonio,
it should be a typo on the Admiralty copy of the messages, ... because the original message is the one I have posted.
Why is the message you have posted on 22nd Dec different to the 05:43 message in David Mearns book or on this website?

http://jproc.ca/radiostor/hood.html
4. The enemy sighting report was in P/L. ie. 1 BS, 1 CR- 17 miles, course and speed unknown, my position bearing 013 from geographical position GFVA distance 21 miles , coded authentication DOO –indicating that this is not a phony message. The time of dispatch is 0543 B. The B indicates 2 hours before GMT (Z). The British kept double summer time during the war.
You have claimed these messages that you have reproduced are "more" authentic, what is your source, please, as it also appears to be incorrect?

All the best

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

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 915
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 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:28 am

wadinga wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:30 am
Hello Antonio,
it should be a typo on the Admiralty copy of the messages, ... because the original message is the one I have posted.
Why is the message you have posted on 22nd Dec different to the 05:43 message in David Mearns book or on this website?

http://jproc.ca/radiostor/hood.html
Because, "1BS 1CR - 17 - UN - 013GFVA21DOO" is the original coded message from HOOD, and the message shown by Antonio, as well as the one from the Admiralty's narrative that Duncan shared with us, show HOOD's 0543 message as already deciphered by some officer in charge to prepare the after the battle reports.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:12 am

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

Jose' Rico is absolutely correct when he stated ;
Because, "1BS 1CR - 17 - UN - 013GFVA21DOO" is the original coded message from HOOD, and the message shown by Antonio, as well as the one from the Admiralty's narrative that Duncan shared with us, show HOOD's 05:43 message as already deciphered by some officer in charge to prepare the after the battle reports.
The messages we are reading in clear has been decoded already ( almost all the messages were sent coded, referencing other messages we talked about months ago about a different subject ) and the decoding process in the Admiralty had a failure in that case translating the 335°T as sent with a 325°T making an evident error, ... as simple as that.

You asked :
You have claimed these messages that you have reproduced are "more" authentic, what is your source, please, as it also appears to be incorrect ?
My different source is correct with the 335°T transcription, and it is the original C.S.1 ( Cruiser Squadron 1 ) radio log, so the original Rear Adm W.F. Wake-Walker submitted report about the radio messages he sent and received ( summary ) during that operation.

NOTE : the Hood 05:43 radio message above that Jose' provided a link for, is one of the 2 milestone for the British tracks, being the point I usually call the Comm. Warrand position of Hood at 05:43, and it is the point that David Mearns utilized as a starting point to find the Hood wreck after having run for 17 minutes on the right direction making the correct turns, while sailing at 28 knots.
That point and bearing was part of the original OS1 map with 5 bearings I initially submitted to you all, but apparently it was too much as we are still discussing about a much easier version of the base map still, waiting for an obvious agreement to be reached.

But I am not in a hurry, so we can take all the time needed for everybody to understand the reality that can be easily determined now with the many evidence we have, ... just as I did time ago.

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

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

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:43 am

Hello Antonio,

So we gather that the typescript you reproduced in this particular instance, had errors too. Lucky nobody here is infallible! I note, whereas Duncan has responsibly revealed his source, you keep yours secret.
as already deciphered by some officer in charge to prepare the after the battle reports
Actually on Joses' point, I believe the P/L prefix indicates plain language ie not encoded. The technique of a range/bearing pair from a charted lat/long intersection just sped things up when precision was limited anyway by the long period of dead reckoning. No messing about with parallel rulers etc to give a position apparently correct to minutes and seconds when nobody could achieve this precision so long after a real navigational fix.This report has more been translated from jargon, rather than decoded, although the letter pairs are a kind of coding, I guess.

That is why correlation of information is important and a single source must be closely scrutinised. Why, for instance, your "revelation" based on a simple remembered distance error in Ellis' late life, un-edited, unreviewed, unpublished memoir cannot overturn information from his detailed contemporary report. It is the reason why consistent bearings from PoW's salvo plot are more valuable and reliable than a single bearing derived from a "useless and worthless" chart. Especially when that bearing is apparently one of a set shown on Reimann's sketch which anomalously show the other British ship on a very different bearing only one minute previously.


Happy New Year to all.

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:06 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

during the last years I should have posted those 3 messages a dozen of times with the related source on several threads, ... if I remember well.

Anyway, ... for me it is not a problem, ... now apparently it is all clear, ... and this is the only thing that counts.

What is important to realize, .. and it seems that now your are ready to accept it, ... is that many information do have errors on them, ... on both sides, ... and needs to be verified after a careful scrutiny, ... and they must be consistent with the overall scenario one must define according to mathematics and geometry ( bearings ), ... known course and speed of every single unit ( 6 of them ) into this battlefield scenario we are realizing now, ... before and after too if one wants a very complete understanding of the whole operation as I did back until the very first Suffolk interception the night before this battle.

Commander Warrand has been very precise and that position is so correct, that enabled David Mearns to find the Hood wreck immediately, just as David wrote on his book I am sure everybody of us has read, ... and if someone has not read it, ... I strongly suggest him to do it.

I have realized where Suffolk really was much earlier than the day I have read his autobiography revealing the truth, ... by simply drawing the Suffolk track in relation to the German squadron, ... and again, ... that is why I invite you all to do this map re-construction exercise here in, ... so you will realize it on your own too.

For the moment it is enough to have understood and agree about the base battle area map with the 4 key points that I have proposed and with Herr Nillson help we have made more precise.

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

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens » Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:49 pm

I think a bit too much has been made of the ITN Channel 4 (Mearns) expedition to find Hood in 2001, the implication being that we essentially went right to the wreck site. We did not. I was aboard during that mission, and can tell you that actually finding Hood was not as straightforward as some might think, and indeed probably somewhat fortuitous. My notes taken on site reveal that the search actually took the better part of two days. The positions of Hood could be determined approximately from other reports to be sure, but certainly not to the precision that seems to have been suggested here.

My agreement with Mr. Mearns and ITN channel 4 preclude me from including more detail, but I did want to point out that the precision of our estimate of the location of Hood was certainly not as great as might be inferred from some previous postings.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 915
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 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:20 pm

Bill,

I may be wrong, but I think Mr. Mearns made a mistake when decoding HOOD's 0543 radio message (1BS 1CR - 17 - UN - 013GFVA21DOO), and therefore plotted the wrong coordinates. On page 115 on his book, he writes:
"Hood's last reported position [013GFVA21DOO], given at 5.43 a.m. when she made her first and only enemy report, could be deciphered as a range and bearing of 13 nautical miles at 21º from the position 63º N and 32º W. I plotted this position and then began to work out Hood's dead-reckoning track up until she was hit and exploded seventeen minutes later..."
I think "13" is actually the bearing, and "21" the range, not the other way around. Therefore, the position should be 21 nautical miles at 13º from the position 63º N and 32º W.

According to "http://jproc.ca/radiostor/hood.html": "my position bearing 013 from geographical position GFVA distance 21 miles"

This is also confirmed by the entry from the War Diary of the Admiralty: "My position 013º 63º N., 32º W., 21"

It would be interesting to work out from this new position, Hood's dead-reckoning track until she sank at 0600, and see if it is closer to the actual wreck of the ship.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:51 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Jose' Rico,

you are correct, 13° is the bearing and 21 are the sea miles from that given point GFVA, ... which was 63°North and 32° West.

I think I have explained it many years ago already :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6323&start=60#p66232

That is the exact position of Hood at 05:43, ... at least the most precise among the 4 Royal Navy warships there in that moment.

I will not disclose the exact Hood wreck place, ... but when you plot those 2 positions on a map with the geographical references, ... you realize that what David Mearns wrote is correct, ... and after 17 minutes at 28 knots average speed, ... you are exactly there on top of the Hood wreck area.

This enabled me to make a lot of other evaluations about this battle and the errors of all the other warships navigating officers.

@ Bill Jurens,

I have just listed David Mearns own declarations on the documentary and what he wrote on page 116 of his book in clear words.

I have studied every detail and traced line on his research area map you can see here while David Mearns is looking it.
DSCN0331.JPG
DSCN0331.JPG (35.14 KiB) Viewed 1505 times
@ all,

I suggest everybody to look the documentary and read David Mearns book from page 107 to page 116, because he just managed the data we are discussing here in, ... and many persons seems to have a lot of problems with.

Now the base battle map should be agreed and more precisely defined compared to my old 2005 map, ... lets see what we will be able to achieve in the future.

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
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 915
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 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:39 pm

Well, if Mr. Mearns did in fact work from position 63º 20' North and 31º 50' West (013GFVA21DOO), then it must be a typo on page 115 in his book because the bearing and range digits appear interchanged.

By the way, the sinking position that has been shown on this website for more than 15 years, that is <63º 22' North, 32º 17' West>, was plotted back in the day starting from Hood's given position at 0543. It may not be 100% accurate, but apparently good enough to appear in a Bismarck book published by a guy from Denmark!!!

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:41 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Jose' Rico,

I am of the opinion that David Mearns did that " error " on purpose to try to " protect " in this way the real Hood sinking exact position and the current wreck location.

This is the only reason why respecting this desire, ... I avoid to disclose the exact position that I know very well since many years.
Well, if Mr. Mearns did in fact work from position 63º 20' North and 31º 50' West (013GFVA21DOO), then it must be a typo on page 115 in his book because the bearing and range digits appear interchanged.
Yes, David Mearns worked exactly from that correct 05:43 Hood position, despite his " intentional mismatch exchange " of bearing and sea mile values.

You know that the " Danish copycat " is mostly unable to do things by himself and it is " specialized " on copy things that others have done or properly researched, ... like lately the German warship camouflages, ... that he knew absolutely nothing about, ... of course.

But also in that case I have left a couple of " Trojan Horse " schemes, ... so at the end everybody knows who he is and where the competences are in reality.

Note : if you like the exact Hood sinking position just send me an e-mail about it and I will write it to you. This because, as said, I like not to write it in public. You will decide on your own what to do, ... and I am ok with 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: 1864
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:35 pm

Hello Antonio and all,

Happy New Year to all, and success to all our investigators and their contributions...…..
during the last years I should have posted those 3 messages a dozen of times with the related source on several threads
Indeed you may well have, and well done for doing so, and there should be no reason not to say (every time) from which specific document that erroneous summary of the 05:43 message came, so people can be warned of its inaccuracy every time it appears in the future.
I have just listed David Mearns own declarations on the documentary and what he wrote on page 116 of his book in clear words.
In clear words he says the first swathe missed completely and it was 39 hours after deploying the gear that Hood was actually found.

We are indeed tremendously lucky in having the principal technical advisor of the Mearns Expedition posting on these threads and when he says
the implication being that we essentially went right to the wreck site. We did not.
we should take careful note. I had already studied Mearns' book and noted that his first search sonar swathe was centred on extrapolating Warrand's position with PoW's Rowell track. It found nothing. Mearns is not specific about what width of bottom coverage each pass of the sonar illuminated, but when searching for Bismarck it was 4,800m. The images on p191 suggest this reconnaissance level coverage was used on Hood and a second high resolution pass of width 1,800m was made after the discovery after three reconnaissance swathes. So Hood's remains were not within 2,400m of Mearn's "high probability" location. I don't know whether Mearns had any overlap between swathes, but my interpretation suggests it was on the next adjacent swathe that the sonar fish passed straight over the wreck site meaning Hood was 4,800m (two half-swathes) away from the derived position based on Warrand's navigation. That means to me one of two things. Either Warrand's position was this much out, which is still a phenomenally good Estimated Position (DR plus allowances) and the last twenty minutes' generated no error, or Warrand was even more accurate and the error was generated in Rowell's recollection of course and speed during the action.

Where the actual sinking location is, relative to the 2km spread of debris, is unclear but I assume we all consider that the 650 ton conning tower fell straight out of the ship as she broke up. I personally consider it would be fanciful to imagine it propelled anywhere by any unguided speculative forward explosion since it weighed nearly 5 times as much as a Saturn V, which was engineered to be propelled. Someone who knows exactly where the conning tower is, and back navigates to 05:43 can tell how accurate those last twenty minutes recorded by Rowell were.

Those assigning ulterior and sinister motives to reported distances and positions by other ships, based on their intuitions, should take note:
That is the exact position of Hood at 05:43, ... at least the most precise among the 4 Royal Navy warships there in that moment.
Firstly, it almost certainly isn't "the exact position", and secondly if it is more accurate and theirs less so, they are not to be blamed, because were doing their best to help Hood's survivors, based on where they thought they were in both relative and absolute positional terms.

All the best

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

Post Reply