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 » Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:27 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

my posted messages are correct, it is the Admiralty log that does contain an error on one of them.

Even if it is all correct as it is written, I cannot care less at this stage on this thread about David Mearns wreck finding process and the geographical positioning of the Hood wreck and the related geographical position of Hood at 05:43.

What is important is that they sailed at average 28 knots as the base map shows.

What you should comment is the base map as summarized after my and Herr Nillson latest corrections.

In absence of any value add, ... I will simply go ahead

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: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:44 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "...so people can be warned of its inaccuracy..."
Which inaccuracy ?
The only inaccuracy is the typo (I don't think it was a deliberate act, at least in this specific case) in the Admiralty transcription of the message: we all know that the Admiralty list of messages was written after the facts and, according to the former CiC Home Fleet, the messages could even be "espunged" from it, if convenient, following a First Sea Lord's order.
The version posted by Antonio is the extract from the official Norfolk message log + it is confirmed by Leach narrative. The Admiralty version is clearly "inaccurate" in this case.



I still have not heard a firm, clear and consistent position from Mr.Wadinga about which ships, in his opinion, were the ones signaled by PoW on 334° (at 05:37) and 325° (05:44), and by Hood on 337° (05:43)...
This explanation is needed from him to see whether his "theory" can be realistic from geometrical viewpoint, given the speeds and courses of the ships, and to be able to "help" him graphically building his alternative map to Antonio's one (download/file.php?id=3352), that should be the aim of this thread.
I can already anticipate to him that his "theory" about a bearing 325°will never cope with all the other info we have about distances from PoW and PG GAR's.


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: 1941
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 8:59 pm

Gentlemen,

Calm down...……... please.

I know you are impatient to get to the "good part" where allegations of cowardice, cover-up and conspiracy are bandied about and "proved", but that will not be for some time, I'm afraid, as we dealing with evidence and reality here.
The version posted by Antonio is the extract from the official Norfolk message log + it is confirmed by Leach narrative. The Admiralty version is clearly "inaccurate" in this case.

This is what Leach's Narrative says:

There was a long wait while the horizon became gradually more distinct and at last at 0535 a suspicious object was sighted and an enemy report made at 0537. "Hood's" report followed immediately. Enemy bore 335 degs. And was on an approx course of 240 degs., "Bismarck" astern of a lighter ship. Course was altered 40 degs. By blue pendant at 0537 and at 0541 "Prince of Wales" was stationed on a bearing of 080 degs. At 0549 B.C.1 signalled:-
"G.S.B. 337 L.1" and a further blue two making to course 300 degs. Was executed.
I believe it is for Antonio to tell us which source has this inaccurate summary of the Hood 05:43 message, which he has posted. The "Admiralty version" kindly provided by Dunmunro includes the range and bearing information from the Geographical co-ord location, which are missing from the typescript Antonio supplied. There is no description of Hood's 05:43 message in Leach's narrative.
my posted messages are correct, it is the Admiralty log that does contain an error on one of them.

Once again, which "Admiralty Log" contains this inaccurate, truncated summary? What is the ADM reference number?
I can already anticipate to him that his "theory" about a bearing 325°will never cope with all the other info we have about distances from PoW and PG GAR's.

For what it's worth I am perfectly willing to accept that 325T is a misprint for 335T. My highlighting it was to show how uncorroborated information can be incorrect. However, once again an observation made in the heat of the moment perhaps reveals a hidden matter.
all the other info we have about distances from PoW and PG GAR's
Who here has access to a PG GAR? We have some vague observations about range in the KTB, and we can derive a single uncorroborated bearing from a "useless and worthless" map, itself no more reliable than the single 325T value, only shown to be in error when compared with others.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:18 pm

Hello everybody,

the only one who needs to "calm down" is Mr.Wadinga.
He wrote: "I am perfectly willing to accept that 325T is a misprint for 335T. My highlighting it was to show how uncorroborated information can be incorrect."
Mr.Wadinga has finally realized that 325° cannot be correct: a good step forward! Therefore his "highlighting" it was just totally irrelevant, as he is (as usual) unable to propose a different geometrical solution than the one posted by Antonio (download/file.php?id=3352).

He wrote: "Who here has access to a PG GAR?"
simply everybody: http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/pg-ktb.zip at this session (from the Hood website):

Jasper_Gunnery Report.jpg
Jasper_Gunnery Report.jpg (16.07 KiB) Viewed 1912 times

Quibbling over terminology (G.A.R. vs. "Bericht des I Artillerieoffizier" = Report of the 1st Artillery Officer) is far, far easier than accepting the above starting point and finally trying to reconstruct this battle, due to the consequences that such a reconstruction inexorably implies...



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: 654
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:29 am

I have been able to do a bit of work lately on the track chart benchmarks posted by Mssrs. Bonomi and Virtuani over the last little while, but unfortunately cannot seem to get the forum to accept a .jpeg scan of my analysis.

I will try to send a copy of my drawing directly to Mr. Rico, who can perhaps insert it on my behalf sometime soon. Once that is done, I will append some associated commentary.

Bill Jurens.


* * * * * * * * * *
MESSAGE EDITED BY THE ADMINISTRATION

I have had a chance to do a bit of work recently on the segments of the track charts recently posted by Mssrs. Bonomi and Virtuani, basically translating a precise scan of the image into AutoCAD, and simplifying things somewhat so that all that remains is what I think represents their final, or at least most recent, depiction of what they feel are the positions of the four basic benchmarks from which the remainder of the action can be interpolated.

I hope readers may find the attached scan useful, and even interesting. Comments are very welcome insofar as the original scans I worked from
were -- at least to me -- sometimes a bit difficult to interpret, and I may have made some clerical and/or transcription errors.

Bill Jurens

* * * * * * * * * *
Attachments
OLT 5 FORUM.JPG
(86.03 KiB) Not downloaded yet

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 Jan 05, 2019 9:45 am

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

please forget about the evaluations of the various Officers battle conduct on both sides.
We have long discussed about it on other threads and it is not the case to restart it here in once again.
As far as I am concerned I have no intention to restart that already done discussion at the end of this battle map work.

I am glad you have finally realized that 325° T on that Admiralty log is an error on transcription, being just impossible to be real and lucky us we had a couple of correct versions of that message communicated enemy bearing being 335°T available on other Official sources.


@ Bill Jurens,

good job with that tool, so finally we can start putting information on a map and agree about it moving forward.

I have checked it and there are several things that needs to be changed and corrected.

Lets start with the PoW track on the bottom of it :
Comparison_AB_BJ_Version_01A_small_sized.jpg
Comparison_AB_BJ_Version_01A_small_sized.jpg (62.69 KiB) Viewed 1848 times
First thing I saw you have reduced 1 minute from 06:00 to 05:59, but you did not reduce the overall distance sailed accordingly if you wanted to do it right for 05:59.

In fact as you can see on my maps comparison above I have made on same scale for easier evaluations, those distances apply to 23 minutes ( not to 22 ) and consequently the speed once calculated for 23 minutes falls down below the 28 knots average as it should be.

You can do it also at 05:59, but you have to subtract from the 5306 meters sailed 770 meters for the 05:59 correct position.
Please remember that 143°T is the bearing at 06:00 between PG and PoW, ... not at 05:59 ( Reimann was stll measuring Hood at 05:59 ), ... we do not have that bearing available and we need to evaluate it in case of need.

This of course will have all the consequent impact on the distance at 06:00 between PoW and Prinz Eugen, that cannot be 15.853 meters that you have used, ... and consequently on the Prinz Eugen track positioning, the overall distance sailed and the related Prinz Eugen speed of course.

If you go back on my map evaluation with Herr Nillson, we arrived at a conclusion that the Prinz Eugen track should be at 14.900 meters from PoW at 06:00 ( bearing 143°T PG to PoW -> 323°T PoW to PG ) and at that point the overall distance of 19.500 meters between point 3 and point 2.

That is what I have evaluated days ago :
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.
Here :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=315#p81788

@ Herr Nillson,

what do you think of this clear scenario now between Prinz Eugen and Prince of Wales between 05:37 and 06:00 ?
What about the PoW turns ?

Let me have your comments, ... 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 Jan 05, 2019 2:28 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

here to current map correction for the Prinz Eugen at 14.900 meters from PoW at 06:00.


AB_BJ_Prinz_Eugen_14900_meters_resized.jpg
AB_BJ_Prinz_Eugen_14900_meters_resized.jpg (67.46 KiB) Viewed 1823 times


NOTE : in the future map evolution the Prinz Eugen track will come most likely even closer to the PoW one, based on the Bismarck track future detailed distance analysis.

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: 654
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:19 pm

Hello Gentlemen:

I have had some additional time to look over Antonio's most recent track chart, and have attached (I hope) a slightly modified and updated version with some slight modifications. This should not be interpreted as my agreement that the solution presented here is in any way "correct", although it may well be so, it is primarily intended to present some sort of discussion item from which further discussions may arise.

Provided that we generally agree that this sort of geometric analysis represents the best way forward, this new diagram defines specific point numbers, i.e. 1 through 4 which, at least as I interpret it represent the relative locations of Prinz Eugen and Prince of Wales at 0537 and 0600 respectively. It also assigns to each 'leg' of the proposed closed traverse, a letter from "A" through "G", which should allow us to discuss the detailed aspects of the reconstruction, if indeed a reconstruction is possible, in a more coherent manner. Mr. Bonomi's suggested amendments to my previous scans, though valuable in an of themselves, do not -- at least via my interpretation -- result in a figure which closes precisely. The error is about 250 meters, which I have 'corrected' by arbitrarily changing the length of leg A. Whether or not this actually constitutes a more valid solution remains a debatable issue.
Untitled-Scanned-01.jpg
(81.8 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Image

It would, at this stage, appear that most of the disagreements expressed on this forum revolve around the determination of reliable values for the lengths and bearings of legs A and F respectively, with the details of other legs, e.g. legs D and B, being seen, at least at this time, as being of lesser importance. It may be that much of this revolves around the fact that the primary legs, i.e. A and F are somewhat problematical insofar as they require the imposition of some fairly arbitrary decisions regarding the relative validity of various and often contradictory descriptions of them, whereas the validity of other legs, such as D, are considered fairly fixed. This may be in large part due to the fact that there are only one documentary source actually describing them. If you have only one source, arguments regarding the relative validity of discrepant descriptions do not, of course, exist. This doesn't mean that these legs are necessarily more accurately described, only that only one description, which is as susceptible as any other to clerical error, survives.

The critical thing, in any case, is to begin to work from some sort of trajectory set which 'closes', i.e. is entirely geometrically consistent. Consistency, by definition, implies validity, but there are no guarantees that a consistent geometry actually is so. I could, for example, have a consistent geometry for the boundaries of Norway which would be entirely inadequate to describe the actual boundaries of, say, Australia.

What I hope the geometry does, is to enable correspondents to more clearly identify areas which they think are worthy of discussion and, quite probably, invalidation. In that regard, I should end by restating my comment that my creation of this diagram should not imply that I feel that it is in any realistic way superior to alternative reconstructions, or even superior to the idea that no reasonably accurate reconstruction is possible at all.

But it might give us some jumping off points for future discussions.

My thanks to Mr. Rico for adapting my previous scan so that we could get it up on the forum for discussion. One hopes that the latest version did come up all right, and that Mr. Rico need not intervene again.

It might be useful if someone could generate a tabular version of the distances and bearings for each leg of the traverse, i.e. legs A through G along with some idea as to exactly how, in each case, the bearing and distance were actually derived.

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 » Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:37 am

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

very good, I personally think that we are moving on the right direction now.

I have put in a graphic format the last changes you made, so everybody can more easily follow the logic of our reasoning.
British_AB_BJ_Version_01B_Resized.jpg
(94.94 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Now correctly you are suggesting a more careful evaluation of the " legs " segment B; C; D; and E on the British tracks.

In this regard, I have invited Herr Nillson to comment on them since he has made time ago a very interesting evaluation of them based on a logic gunnery reasoning base :

British_Tracks_Evaluation_01A_Resized.jpg
British_Tracks_Evaluation_01A_Resized.jpg (105.72 KiB) Viewed 1718 times
I like Herr Nillson logic simply because it follows my reasoning, ... that is based on the fact that the British tracks and turns, ... must match with the bearings from PoW toward the Bismarck while she was following a straight line following the Prinz Eugen on course 220°T, ... just as Herr Nillson himself depicted clearly explaining this logic in this map example :

Herr_Nillson_evaluation_BC1_track.jpg
Herr_Nillson_evaluation_BC1_track.jpg (59.95 KiB) Viewed 1718 times
Comments are welcome, ... 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: 1399
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:34 am

Just two comments for now:
Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:45 am
In fact as you can see on my maps comparison above I have made on same scale for easier evaluations, those distances apply to 23 minutes ( not to 22 ) and consequently the speed once calculated for 23 minutes falls down below the 28 knots average as it should be.
Why falls PoW below 28 knots suddenly?
Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:45 am
If you go back on my map evaluation with Herr Nillson, we arrived at a conclusion that the Prinz Eugen track should be at 14.900 meters from PoW at 06:00 ( bearing 143°T PG to PoW -> 323°T PoW to PG ) and at that point the overall distance of 19.500 meters between point 3 and point 2.
I've never arrived at this conclusion. Around 15,000 meters was your estimate. In my opinion that value can't be input of our evaluations, but can only be a result ....at best.
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:42 am

Hello everybody,
Herr Nilsson wrote: "Why falls PoW below 28 knots suddenly?"
Why she should not "fall" at 27,79 knots (Antonio) or 27,74 (Mr.Jurens), while turning three times ?

he wrote: "I've never arrived at this conclusion. Around 15,000 meters was your estimate"
What is Mr.Nilsson's estimate, taking into account Rowell and the PoW gunnery plot info too?


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
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 » Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:01 pm

Hello everybody,

Herr Nillson,

the speed of the PoW I have utilized for this first map realization is coming from the Official Rowell map of the situation at 06:00 showing the track of the BC1 warships, ... and in there it is clearly written that both Hood and PoW were on course 300°T, ... so at the very beginning of the action already, ... both at 28 knots speed.

You have the detail of it here above on my last post.

YES, of course 15.000 meters and lately 14.900 meters between PG and PoW was my initial estimate based on Ltnt Paulus Jasper report, ... and I have used it for this first map evaluation in order to get read of the doubts about the more than 19.000 meters wrongly written on the PG official map and on the PG torpedo map by Ltnt Sigurd Reimann, ... just as VizeAdm Hubert Schmundt immediately realized too, ... but it is not " short " enough I think.

Why ? Very simple, ... because at 06:00 the Bismarck was at 16.450 yards ( around 15.000 meters ) from PoW, ... referencing both the Rowell map at 06:00 and the PoW gunnery plot, ... and PoW had just hit the Bismarck, ... so the distance evaluation was pretty close between PoW and Bismarck.

Now if you put the Bismarck on course 220°T following the Prinz Eugen at that distance and draw a 220°T course for Bismarck, ... you will realize that it will fall on the Prinz Eugen port side, ... and that is impossible.

Consequently, ... the Prinz Eugen was closer ( distance ) than the 15.000 or 14.900 meters I initially suggested, ... because the Bismarck must be in line and a bit to starboard of the Prinz Eugen sailed track, ... just as both Ltnt Otto Schlenzka and Hans Henning Von Schultz told me, ... just like Paul Schmalenbach reported, ... and Fritz Otto Busch wrote on his book referencing Schmitz-Westerholt painting actions going from one side to the other of the Prinz Eugen, .... and last but not least just as Schmitz-Westerholt himself depicted on his 06:00 battle time paint later on too.

You know like I do that moving now the Prinz Eugen closer to PoW with the same bearings we have finally agreed at 05:37 ( 334°T ) and at 06:00 ( 323°T PoW to PG and opposite 143°T PG to PoW ), ... the Prinz Eugen spreed will decrease a bit from 27,47 knots, ... closer to 27 knots, ... because the sailed distance will be no more 19.500 meters but it will be shorter.

That is the reason why I have started with 27 knots for Prinz Eugen and 28 for the PoW, ... knowing already very well where we were going to go at the end.

But I am OK with all those up and down exercises, ... so everybody reading this forum will get used to make their own personal evaluations too based on the real data we have.

What about the PoW " legs " lenght based on your PoW gunnery intuition for the 05:57 " A-arcs opened ". What do you think of that approach now ?


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: 3908
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by dunmunro » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:44 am

I've made a new topic in the technology forum regarding the use of type 273 and 284 radar, but it also shows an AFCT in use and target plotting:

viewtopic.php?f=13&p=81822#p81822

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:29 am

My feeling is that we might do better if we try to get some ideas on exactly where various correspondents stand on the measurements were are trying to determine.

To that end, I would suggest we try to begin with something like the following, which may, at the very least, if filled in by multiple participants, give us some ideas of where the major areas of discrepancy and disagreement lie.

Once we agree – if that is possible – that we have obtained the best values possible, standard surveying techniques can be used to determine how the traverse might best be adjusted to minimize, at least statistically, the overall error. In that regard, when filling in the table below it is important NOT to try to make the traverse close ahead of time, i.e. to treat each leg of the traverse as a completely separate entity. That part is for later in the game.

As always, comments welcome.

(Suggested table format below)



LEG BEARING PROBABLE ERROR SOURCE LENGTH PROBABLE ERROR SOURCE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G


Bill Jurens

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:34 am

Formatting can sometimes be frustrating, and there appears to be no easy way to edit previous posts. With regard to the table above, the following, with better differentiation of the columns intended, may be more easily understood.

LEG|BEARING |PROBABLE ERROR| SOURCE|LENGTH|PROBABLE ERROR |SOURCE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

Post Reply