Let's all try to back off from the personal comments and slurs again. As before, they do nothing but antagonize the target, and if anything push the discussions backward rather than forward.
It IS pointless -- at least in my opinion -- to involve ourselves in quibbles about turning rates and small variations in ballistics when we have not, at least so far as I know, even established what we are arguing ABOUT.
I presume, in that regard, that we are attempting -- by whatever means -- to reconstruct a reasonable track chart for the Denmark Strait action, This would first require that we at least collate, and hopefully agree upon, what might constitute primary evidence. Only after that has been done, might we begin the process of trying to determine exactly what can be deduced from that bank of primary evidence.
So we have two steps. The first is accumulating the raw data. The second is deciding exactly what, if anything, that raw data -- which is admittedly incomplete and sometimes contradictory, might be able to tell us.
Start with step 1. Assuming that the geometry represented by the diagram showing legs A through G is accepted by all as representing at least a plausible jumping-off point for further discussion -- one has to start somewhere -- the next phase would be to collect and analyse all of the data available to establish the characteristics, in navigational terms, of each of the legs depicted on the diagram. In that regard, we might consider whether or not another geometry, e.g. one beginning with an alternative for leg A would be more appropriate. This will be easier for some legs than for others. For legs C and D for example, there seems to be only a single source of evidence, which implies they are not debatable. That incidentally does not suggest they are correctly defined, only that there are no alternatives to be considered. A blunder in recording the length or bearing of Leg C, for example, would be difficult to detect.
It is only after we have discussed the validity of each individual leg in detail, and established the limits of the accuracy and precision of each individual leg, that we can begin to assemble our collection of 'best guesses' into a coherent overall geometry. That geometry is unlikely to be geometrically coherent, and the resolution of that residual incoherence -- if such is possible at all -- represents a further stage in the process.
We did have a few discussions regarding the length and bearing of Leg A, but soon drifted away from that. I think that it would be best if we tried to return to that issue, and that issue alone, and see if we can determine to what degree of accuracy Leg A can be reconstructed. This, of course, requires a full discussion of exactly how the length of Leg A can actually be derived. Leg A DID exist, i.e. in real life the there was a precise range and bearing between Prinz Eugen and Prince of Wales at 0557. The question revolves around whether or not sufficient data survives to enable us to reconstruct that particular leg to any useful degree of accuracy and precision. Only then might we move on to attempting to resolve the lengths and bearings of other legs in the geometry set.
Again, I'd ask participants to PLEASE refrain from personal attacks on other correspondents. One can attack the observations, but additional editorializing regarding the motives and intelligence of other participants is both unnecessary and inappropriate. Our eyes, at least at this stage, should be on the primary source evidence and the evidence alone.
I hope we can all agree on that, at least...
Best from Winnipeg...