Bismarck at DS after the second turn

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:19 pm

Hello everybody,

I would not try to be more precise than +/- 1° or +/- 100-300 meters, so no "probable error" listed from my side (na).

As you can see, also very few changes compared to Antonio's and Bill Jurens's proposals (just my preference is for following Rowell and PoW maps instead of the "rounded" timings given in Leach narrative for the PoW legs). I have "assumed" PG speed around 27,5 knots and PoW speed around 27,8 knots.
I would say:

Tab_Legs.jpg
Tab_Legs.jpg (48.6 KiB) Viewed 1659 times

Please, keep in mind that this is not intended to give a geometrical exact matching (therefore it is well possible that the polygon (A+B+C+D+E+F+G) will not "close" precisely. It is just an approximation to simplify the discussion focusing on the key points only.

I'm ready to share the source excel file, in case someone else wants to present his proposal using the same format, but in this case I would need help from the Administrator as I don't know how to attach an .xlsx file to this forum.


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: 620
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 5:06 pm

Thank you, Alberto.

Let's see if others are interested in posting alternative versions so that we can begin to identify more precisely where the sources of disagreement lie. So far as errors are concerned, it's usual to assume that they are essentially linearly related to leg length, i.e. can be represented as a percentage or proportion. For fairly rough optical surveying work, which would be much more precise than the sorts of observations we are likely dealing with here, the errors are typically around 1 part in 500 in distance and around 5 minutes of arc, i.e. about 0.08 degrees.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:31 pm

Hello everybody,

I have done some slightly more precise (I hope) calculations and I have discovered a couple serious errors in my above table especially for legs C and E.

Sorry for that, here the "amended" version. All my previous disclaimers about "precision" are still valid as well as the other parameters used such as speeds, etc.

Tab_Legs_V1.jpg
Tab_Legs_V1.jpg (78.06 KiB) Viewed 1626 times

I have added the duration of each leg to make calculations more easily verifiable....



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 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:13 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

here my input :
Tab_Legs_V1_Bonomi_inputs_01.jpg
Tab_Legs_V1_Bonomi_inputs_01.jpg (76.34 KiB) Viewed 1621 times


The new Prinz Eugen position at 06:00 is based on the Bismarck position at 06:00 as showed on Rowell map and on the PoW gunnery plot, being at 16.450 yards = 15.042 meters on bearing 330°T from PoW.

Bismarck cannot be on the Prinz Eugen port side. Consequently the Prinz Eugen must be moved more toward the PoW.

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: 3455
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:47 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote: "Prinz Eugen position at 06:00 is based on the Bismarck position at 06:00 as showed on Rowell map and on the PoW gunnery plot, being at 16.450 yards"
Hi Antonio,
please keep in mind that the PoW gunnery plot shows salvo 13 fired at 5:59:45 from 15042 meters (16450 yards) but this "distance" is the gunnery range, aimed at the "future point" of the target.
As Germans were closing range by around 800 meters per minute and flight time was 25 seconds for the British 14" shell (salvo 13 landing at around 6:00:10), this implies that BS distance at 6:00:00 could be around 15.200.
Therefore PG could be at around 14800-14900 meters from PoW at 6:00:00, 300 to 500 meters closer to enemy in range, preceding the flagship by 1500-2000 meters.

Of course minor refinements can always be done, but I personally feel 14250 meters is too much close (especially compared to Jasper reported distances that are already somehow "excessive"), and I still would keep around 14800 meters, waiting to better position Bismarck track as well.


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 » Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:16 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

I agree with your above reasoning.

Once positioned on the Prinz Eugen starboard side sailing in line of battle with the German heavy cruiser, ... the Bismarck track will define more precisely both the Prinz Eugen track real distance from PoW as well as the BC1 legs inclination and duration ( length ) including the turns executed.

In order to do that it is enough to draw a 220°T straight line and work with the PoW gunnery plot bearings toward the Bismarck, ... of course as you correctly stated above ... keeping in mind that those are gunnery range, ... not the real Bismarck position at that time, ... but the future position of the Bismarck when the PoW salvo was going to land on her.

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: 620
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:10 pm

Mr. Virtuani wrote:

"please keep in mind that the PoW gunnery plot shows salvo 13 fired at 5:59:45 from 15042 meters (16450 yards) but this "distance" is the gunnery range, aimed at the "future point" of the target."

I am not sure that this interpretation of "gunnery range" is entirely correct. (Although it may appear that way, I'm really not trying to be 'nit-picky', honest...) There are several reasons why the gun range (usually) does not correspond to the navigational range. The largest of these, usually, involves arbitrary ballistic corrections which make it necessary to set the range on the fire control equipment to what amounts to a bogus range in order to actually hit the target. Because of differences in atmospherics and variations in actual vs calculated initial velocities (etc. etc. etc.) in order to hit a target at a range of, say, 18000 meters, one might actually have to set the guns to fire as though the target were only 16500 yards distant. Most of these apply whether the target and or firing ship are moving or not. Such computational fictions are (or, perhaps more precisely were) often necessary to get the job done, particularly when corrections had to be made rapidly in real-time.

So, for any given salvo, one might have two or more figures being recorded. One might be navigational range as measured by the ship's rangefinders and/or radar equipment, another might be the figures being set (and recorded) in the plotting room as the numbers required to actually get a straddle, and a third might be the range-table values derived from the angles of departure, etc., actually being set on the guns at the time of firing. Exactly which of these figures might be being quoted in any narrative of the action is often difficult, and sometimes impossible to determine, particularly because rather small changes in the configuration and employment of the fire control equipment will often mean that figures are being generated and recorded in several different ways.

One sees similar phenomena in, for example, target firing of rifles, etc. One might have one's sights set and calibrated 'by the book' to hit a target at 100 meters, only to find that in practice one has to set the sights at some other slightly different range, corresponding to say 120 meters, in order to actually hit the bullseye. Which range one might use to describe the situation afterwards, somewhat depends upon circumstance and the context of the subsequent conversation.

The spreadsheet data presented by Mssrs. Virtuani and Bonomi are (at least to me) very welcome, and I await some response from other correspondents. It's important to note, though, that the figures quoted in these sorts of spreadsheets should, if proper analysis is to be done later, be free of initial interpretation. That is to say that in compiling such initial values no attempt should be made to adjust the values in order to help the traverse to close at the end. One should only record the original actual written (or perhaps oral) values for the range and bearings of each leg with no consideration whatsoever as to how they may be corrected to suit one's predetermined idea of what the outcome might be. The values of each leg should be treated as entirely independent sets of observations.

In formal work, one then tries to determine -- again for each leg independently -- exactly what the most likely values for the distances are, resolving discrepancies in the initial values at hand, especially if there are discrepancies and disagreements involved. By weighting the probable accuracy of each set of values in a given set, one then can arrive at a most probable trial value for each leg, again treating each leg as an entirely separate entity. After the best values are obtained for each leg, then these values are plotted and the closure error of the traverse determined. At that point, using one or more of a variety of well-known methods, one then forces closure of the traverse mathematically, and redistributes the required corrections in ranges and bearings along each leg of the traverse in some proportional method.

One first collects and compares ALL of the raw information, and I'm not sure we have actually done that yet for some of the legs involved. Then one resolves, or attempts to resolve, the differences between observations that don't agree.

Best from here...

Bill Jurens.

Bill Jurens








Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:24 pm

Hi Mr.Jurens,
you wrote: "There are several reasons why the gun range (usually) does not correspond to the navigational range."
I know, you are perfectly right.
However, when asked to draw a map, Rowell clearly used the gun ranges from the PoW salvo plot to evaluate the actual distance of Bismarck from PoW at the Hood's explosion time for the board (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... encIVb.gif).
Therefore, in this case, he interpreted the gun range from PoW salvo plot as being almost the same as the navigational range, except for the due "correction" introduced by the "future point" calculation in the gun range vs the navigational range, graphically well depicted in his above map when he drew the "fatal shell" red path.

As the PoW navigating officer used the gun ranges for "navigational" mapping purposes, I think we can lightly do the same here.


Bill Jurens wrote: "It's important to note, though, that the figures quoted in these sorts of spreadsheets should, if proper analysis is to be done later, be free of initial interpretation."
I do agree. That's exactly what I meant writing (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81849#p81826):
"Please, keep in mind that this is not intended to give a geometrical exact matching (therefore it is well possible that the polygon (A+B+C+D+E+F+G) will not "close" precisely."




you wrote: "I await some response from other correspondents"
me too... I wonder whether anyone else will be willing to contribute.
However, as I have repeatedly said, just criticizing someone's else reconstruction is far, far easier than building your own one, presenting it and, consequently, exposing yourself personally.



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: 1873
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:02 pm

Hello All,

Once again, because I choose not field an alternate speculative geometry against the parameters suggested by others, I am accused of a solely destructive approach. In the matter of positioning up to 06:00 I am not so combative, if there is not any factor as yet unexposed, this may indeed be close to reality. But, on some other matters I am a crusader.

On this thread:

Some while ago, before he was drawn into the gravity-well of assuming a moderately precise geometrical solution can be created based on the fragmentary, contradictory and unreliable evidence currently available, Bill posted:

This would seem to support a conclusion that at least the speeds of Prinz Eugen, and perhaps the courses as well, are problematical during the period of heavy maneuvering. This in turn (no pun intended) suggests that if we don’t really know where Prinz Eugen was during this period, we have relatively little reliable information, at least in great detail, as to where Bismarck might have been either.

Although we are concerned here with a slightly earlier time, the same lack of reliable, corroborated evidence is true here. Becoming embroiled in a conversation about the deflection applied in both azimuth and range to PoW's shot, ignores the lack of any real evidence that salvo 13 (rather than any other) actually hit Bismarck. No witness, British or German says so, therefore the assumption that this vital geometric cross-brace exists is invalid (Plus or minus 300m).


Eugene Slover's fine work continues to exalt his memory on the Web and has much information on deflection application. Drift due to rifling, Coriolis force adjustment (S-N shooting at 60 deg North) , wind allowance and relative movement during shell flight etc all deflect both the azimuth and range of gun pointing, away from the best guess navigational range and azimuth pair. By my estimate PoW was aiming about 1 degree to the left because of these additive factors.


Because PG is shooting N-S in high latitudes at a target moving left to right much of the deflection compensation is opposite sense.


Much earlier Byron contributed real world recorded figures about the four knot speed loss a similar sized British vessel recorded when making a high speed turn similar to that made by PoW. This is now ignored and instead a surreal debate ensues:

Why she should not "fall" at 27,79 knots (Antonio) or 27,74 (Mr.Jurens), while turning three times ?

Bill's earlier comments about PG's mapped speeds and courses are equally valid about Rowell's mapping efforts, which made no effort to adjust for reduced speeds after turns when creating the plots. The Admiralty Navigation manual includes examples of how this may be done when required, but the general understanding the Board needed required no such precision. The angle of fall tables used by Bill in his 1987 article which debunked decades of "plunging shell" nonsense, were not in their possession, and so merely a rough idea of the relative positions and hence very approximate German shell performance was needed.


Please continue to refine the speculation for the time-being , but personally I hope Jose's enigmatic observation on the potential availability of a more detailed PG Gunnery Report bears fruition and we have some real additional information.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:32 pm

Hello everybody,

Q.E.D.
I wrote: "I wonder whether anyone else will be willing to contribute. However...just criticizing someone's else reconstruction is far, far easier than building your own one, presenting it and, consequently, exposing yourself personally."
Mr.Wadinga's above post demonstrates I was just right.

He "has chosen not to field an alternate speculative geometry" instead of doing what had been suggested in order to reconstruct the battle.
A legitimate (but wrong) choice, because this way he confirms he has no credible alternative at all, only fruitless doubts and sterile critics also to this proposed approach, while impudently admitting his long lasting "crusader" attitude here.


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: 620
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:59 am

The question is not whether or not Wadinga (or anyone else) can provide a credible alternative. It actually lies in determining whether or not a credible first option can be created. Someone might come to me with actual written documentation showing that my grandmother died at the age of 124, and I don't have to have a 'credible alternative' to be able to refute that proposition.

Of course some sort of credible reconstruction should be able to be made using the data available, even if much of it is contradictory or even missing. I would feel quite confident, for example, in stating that the 0600 range from Bismarck to Hood was more than 500 meters and less than 35000. The issue at hand, at least as I see it, is trying to determine exactly what reasonable credible limits are. Yourself and Mr. Bonomi probably feel that a reconstruction with a high probability of being within 500 meters of being correct is possible. Wadinga -- if I am reading him correctly -- feels that the probable error in the reconstruction is probably more like three or four thousand meters, or at least large enough so that detailed speculation regarding the precise timing and geometry of smaller movements probably represents an exercise in futility and/or imagination.

I am trying to remain neutral here, and continue to hold (I hope) an open mind either way. If we can accumulate, from whatever sources, a fairly comprehensive list of observations and -- by whatever means -- somehow distill these into a set of observations (and errors)which we can all agree are at least reasonable, then it is possible that we might be able, using formal surveying techniques, to arrive at some sort of 'most probable' solution, with some sort of objectively derived limit of precision. This may, or may not, prove to be actually possible.

The first phase would be to collect and collate all of the various observations available in order to determine what -- if any -- compromises and methodology might be employed to reduce the various discrepant values to some reasonably reliable final value. We might, for example, conclude that the amalgamation of various 0557 observations for Leg A (which should be listed for all to read) are -- again just to take an example -- most reasonably reduced to a range of 32000-37000 meters, with an associated bearing of 152-157 degrees. If we do this with every leg of the traverse, then the resulting closure residuals can be minimized by applying one or more standard surveying algorithms.

Whether or not this exercise will result in a final set of observations which are useful enough to justify further investigation, remains to be seen. Some feel there is enough evidence that it is pointless even going to trial, and that may be true. Others feel that a complete investigation will probably result in some given outcome 'x', 'y', or 'z', the exact option depending to a certain extent upon the individual involved.

I personally would like to see some sort of a formal trial of the data and reconstruction. Whether or not participants are willing to put in the time and effort to present evidence and withstand cross-examination remains to be seen. Actually, we have been doing this for some time already now, but without some sort of more formal structure in place, it's kind of more like a shouting match or a bar-fight.

I, for what it is worth, greatly value everyone's opinion, especially if it is presented in a reasonable tone, and hope that all will continue to participate.

Bill Jurens.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
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 11, 2019 8:44 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "Wadinga -- if I am reading him correctly -- feels that the probable error in the reconstruction is probably more like three or four thousand meters, or at least large enough so that detailed speculation regarding the precise timing and geometry of smaller movements probably represents an exercise in futility and/or imagination"
If this is the case, Mr.Wadinga can avoid to come in here throwing in (as usual) a bunch of (not proven) speculations about the "derivation" of a shell during his trajectory (around 100 meters anyway at a range 14900 meters, referring to the data I have for Littorio's 381 mm guns from E.Bagnasco book) or about the speed loss while turning "softly" 20 or 40 degrees (reading carefully what we have concluded with Byron (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81529&hilit= ... oss#p81527), instead of inventing things just to justify his inability to propose any different scenario).

A simple final declaration of this mocking "crusader" (his impudent definition of his own attitude in the forum) that the battle cannot be reconstructed in any way will suffice to get read of his worthless and wrong observations.


Bill Jurens wrote: "Whether or not participants are willing to put in the time and effort to present evidence and withstand cross-examination remains to be seen."
IMO, It is already well evident that nobody except himself, Antonio and (for what's worth) myself seriously intend to proceed with the methodology proposed, preferring not to fill the table with their alternative.
The table content has been defined by the moderator (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=330#p81825), not by me nor by Antonio. I do think that everyone who "pretends" to discuss here should show his willingness to collaborate filling it, not just criticizing what others have duly done.

Else, we can lightly close this discussion here: a reconstruction has already been done by Antonio and it is more than enough for all purposes of discussing the "critical" aspect of the battle and the "conduct" of the involved officers.


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 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:36 am

Hello everybody,

just as Alberto Virtuani correctly stated, a Denmark Strait battle re-construction has already been done and published on 2005 by me, ... and so far nobody else has been able to do anything either better or different, ... demonstrating in this way my 2005 work to be obsolete or incorrect.

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrai ... trait1.htm

That milestone is already out there and it is already far better than anything else published before, ... this is for sure.

http://www.kbismarck.com/ds-barticle.pdf

Even if the work is complete and well structured like never before, ... I know there are some not 100% perfect parts in my 2005 work that needs to be improved and modified given recent information available, and in fact I have almost ready a new version of it to be published in few years.

I am participating to this thread ( and to other threads too ) just to share the available information to see if together we can improve it further more, ... as obvious.

If this is not going to happen, ... than it is obvious that it will be just a pure waste of time from my side, ... and consequently it will be reasonable to stop any further effort in this direction here in.

Lets see how this will develop in few days, ...

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: 1873
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:48 am

Hello Alberto,
or about the speed loss while turning "softly" 20 or 40 degrees (reading carefully what we have concluded with Byron
Turning "softly" is not what is portrayed in Rowell's maps. They are instantaneous angular changes and thus cannot represent the true path of the ship, but are a crude approximation, all that is required for the Hood Board. Since turning and resultant heeling are both deleterious to accurate gunnery, the aim is surely to minimise their duration, and so there is no requirement to turn "softly". Hard rudder would be used to minimise the duration of the disruption period. We know from wreck photographs that Hood's rudder is turned at approximately 20 degrees, there is nothing "softly" about doing that at 25-30 knots.

Whatever Littorio's guns have in their range tables I doubt they will have the values of rotation of the Earth necessary for 60 degrees north and S-N shooting as nobody ever imagined them firing at such Northern latitudes. Gene Slover's pages have the tables detailing the numerous deflection additives for various US guns but of course not the British 14". So my estimate is as it was presented, an estimate.
a bunch of (not proven) speculations about the "derivation" of a shell during his trajectory

I have not even mentioned the deflection adjustment necessary for air density and of course the cold dense air at 60 degrees North is different to that in the balmy climes of the Mediterranean, which Mr Bagnasco and Italian gun manufacturers might be more familiar with.

BTW the correct term, which I used, is deflection, "derivation" doesn't mean anything in this context, perhaps you have confused "deviation".

I note that that nothing is said about the most serious shortcoming I raised: that is the lack of any positive evidence whatsoever that there was a hit at a nominated range on salvo 13.

The accusation of "impudence" implies a certain superiority of one individual's status over another, one that surely cannot apply here. As I clearly stated my Crusader activities are reserved for other threads where a "jihad" is taking place. As Bill has rightly observed I believe the error bars on virtually all legs of the traverse are so large as to render the whole
an exercise in futility and/or imagination
and as moderator he has not suggested that the insertion of equally unreliable values into his matrix is a requirement to post comments here.


All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3455
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 11, 2019 11:21 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Turning "softly" is not what is portrayed in Rowell's maps."
if he thinks BC1 turned "hard rudder", please present the requested table using the according speeds, else this discussion is a total waste of time.
he wrote: "Gene Slover's pages have the tables detailing the numerous deflection additives for various US guns but of course not the British 14"."
therefore his supposition is not supported by any evidence, but he can still fill the table adjusting bearing according to his speculation, if able....
he wrote: "the correct term, which I used, is deflection, "derivation" doesn't mean anything...."
thanks for quibbling over terminology, the substance doesn't change, in Italian the correct term is "derivazione" and the data is correct.
he wrote: "other threads where a "jihad" is taking place"
Is the term "jihad" allowed by the moderator ? If so, I will use again the better word to describe Mr.Wadinga attitude: "denial at any cost".


he wrote: "as moderator he has not suggested that the insertion of equally unreliable values into his matrix is a requirement to post comments here"
as I said, not being willing to reconstruct the battle using the approach proposed by the moderator, will have only one result: the end of this whole discussion and attempt to find any agreement.

Still Antonio's reconstruction will stand (alone) and can be used for all purposes vs the useless "fog of war...nothing can be reconstructed" approach of Mr.Wadinga.


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

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

Post Reply