Bismarck at DS after the second turn

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1906
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 12:32 pm

Hello Alberto,

Rowell's map shows a near instantaneous turn of 20 degrees at most taking 30 seconds. Have you ever turned 20 degrees in 30 seconds in your naval career? At 28 knots?

Here is where you can go to expand your knowledge about "derivazione" in locations where the Littorio class never went. eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/USN-GUNNERY-AND-FIRE-CONTROL.html

British shells are as susceptible to atmospheric density variations and rotation of the earth in high latitudes as American ones.

Your refusal to accept the limitations of the available data and therefore the "correctness" of any speculation created from it, means you are correct in one thing
this discussion is a waste of time.
All the best.


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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
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 2:03 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Rowell's map shows a near instantaneous turn of 20 degrees at most taking 30 seconds. Have you ever turned 20 degrees in 30 seconds in your naval career?"
Where/how is Mr.Wadinga able to measure 30 seconds on Rowell's map ? :think:
Can he fill the table (if able) with his speculation about Holland having turned his ships with hard rudder (while not loosing speed/bearing was essential) ?
PoW turned 160°at full speed and hard rudder in less than 2 minutes.... Why should we assume "hard rudder" to turn 20° even in 10 seconds ? :think:
he wrote: "Here is where you can go to expand your knowledge about "derivazione" in locations where the Littorio class never went."
Many thanks. He can now fill the table with his alternative proposal to show us that he was somehow able to understand what he has read....



For the time being, after comparing Antonio's and mine, I would now propose these values:

Tab_Legs_V2.jpg
Tab_Legs_V2.jpg (77.61 KiB) Viewed 2307 times

If Mr.Wadinga is able to propose something different, we can discuss, if not, we can all live with Antonio's complete reconstruction forever, waiting for someone else input.
For sure this battlefiled area base evaluation cannot be denied, it can just be made more precise in its detail measurments: download/file.php?id=3359.



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: 643
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 6:46 pm

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...

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 11, 2019 8:26 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

at this point we have given everybody enough time to provide any value add on both the base map as well as on the table you have proposed.

The current results are no changes being suggested to the base map diagram and the table me and Alberto has produced after few exchange of distances.

I think it is a good enough point to restart and move forward now, because in any case future small changes will occur no matter what.

As I have already written time ago, now we can only draw the Bismarck and apply the PoW gunnery bearings in order to obtain both the Bismarck timetable of her positioning while sailing on course 220°T as well as the most correct legs dimensions and turns positioning on the BC1 warships.

My personal suggestion is to start from the 06:00 Bismarck and PoW positions, ... with Bismarck on 330°T and at 15.042 or 16.450 yards from the PoW, ... and than move backwards until the 05:37.

In easy words we have to apply this approach to the base reference map we have realized :

Herr_Nillson_evaluation_BC1_track.jpg
Herr_Nillson_evaluation_BC1_track.jpg (59.95 KiB) Viewed 2264 times
Not so difficult to realize it in the exact scale and put it on top of what we already have made, ... with the correct timing references.


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 12, 2019 9:20 am

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

here the Bismarck ( GREEN dot ) correctly positioned on bearing 330°T at 15.042 meters ( 16.450 yards ) from the PoW at 06:00.

I have re positioned closer to PoW the Prinz Eugen track and position at 06:00 ( BLUE dot ), so the Bismarck will result being correctly on the heavy cruiser wake sailing in line, a bit on her starboard side as it must be.

Map_with_Bismarck_at_0600_resized.jpg
(81.32 KiB) Not downloaded yet

and here the modification detail :

0600_detail_German_warships.jpg
0600_detail_German_warships.jpg (32.79 KiB) Viewed 2214 times

in this way we have the Bismarck track in the map correctly positioned as a starting point.

The PoW gunnery plot will define the Bismarck real speed and movements on her 220°T course, ... in relation to PoW while following the Prinz Eugen, ... and the BC1 warships most correct legs definition.

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: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:27 am

Hi Antonio,

I don't see your positioning of Prinz Eugen as the most correct one, for the reasons I have explained here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=345#p81831).

We have to consider that the PoW gunnery plot shows salvo 13 fired at 5:59:45 from 15042 meters (16450 yards) and that this "distance" is the distance of the "future point" of Bismarck, when the shells land, at around 6:00:10 (flight time was around 25 seconds for the British 14" shell at that distance).
As Bismarck was closing range by around 800 meters per minute due to the geometry of the engagement, her actual distance from PoW at 5:59:45 could still have been a bit more than 15400 meters and thus around 15200 meters at 6:00:00.
In order to keep PG in line with BS (or very slightly to her port side), PG could still be at around 14800 meters from PoW at 6:00:00, around 400 meters closer to enemy, preceding the flagship by 1500-2000 meters.

Putting PG at 14250 meters from PoW at 6:00:00, will be too close and would deny what Jasper says in his report.
I would not keep PG much less than 14800 meters from PoW at 6:00:00.


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 » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:04 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

I agree with you my friend, ... my one was just a graphic example, ... so everybody can understand just like you did, ... what I mean as a process of realizing this battlefield in the most correct way given the available data we do have today.

Your data are the most reasonable ones.

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 » Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:06 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

as stated above your data are the most reasonable ones, ... averaging Paulus Jasper report approx distances and PoW salvo plot gun ranges distances, ... however, ... if we keep in account those distances as declared by Capt J.C. Leach :
True range on opening fire was 25,000 yards ( 22.860 meters ). The true range on ceasing fire was 14,500 yards ( 13.259 meters ).
Taken from here :

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

We can easily realize that those distances can become even shorter due to the fact that PoW was firing at Bismarck, ... and consequently the Prinz Eugen will result being closer to the PoW compared to the evaluated approx distances by Paulus Jasper.

In fact 14.800 meters at 06:00 between PG and PoW with a 1.000 meters every minute closure rate between the 2 squadrons, ... will end up at around 12.800 meters between PG and PoW at 06:02, ... being the closer distance between PG and PoW, ... while Jasper was declaring only below 14.000 meters.

I would like to have others opinion about this ...

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: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:32 am

Hello everybody,

@Antonio,
whatever the exact distance of PG from PoW at 06:00, it was something between 15000 and 14500 meters, for sure NOT the 197 hm depicted both in PG battlemap and in the PG torpedo plot... :wink:

I don't think it is worth to try to establish this distance in a much more precise way, as the above interval matches very well with all the other evidences from PoW (especially Leach's report and McMullen's GAR+Salvo Plot, providing very precise figures).

After time has been given to everybody to study the evidences, I would suggest to proceed from here (using an average value like 14800 meters), as nobody seems to be willing to come out with any alternative: hopeless IMO to wait for anyone to be fair enough to explicitly admit that what you have proposed is the only reasonable scenario.


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 28, 2019 7:49 am

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

well, ... I see that there is no intention to proceed further more on making this battle field re-construction more precise.

I surely can live with it, ... having done this work myself many times already, ... and knowing perfectly the final result of it, ... for the main warships as well as for the heavy cruisers Suffolk and Norfolk.

Few years and the battle map will be published in full details on my next books about the Bismarck.

Meanwhile I am thinking about a dedicated book only dedicated to the Denmark Strait battle.

Thanks for your help ...

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: 3486
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 28, 2019 8:18 am

Hi Antonio,
I had written: "I wonder whether anyone else will be willing to contribute."
Q.E.D.

you wrote: " I am thinking about a dedicated book only dedicated to the Denmark Strait battle"
If I can be of any help in building up this book, I will be glad to do so.

Your work does deserve a full book dedicated to the NF and SF shadowing from 23/5, to the battle precise reconstruction, to the real damages/malfunctions on PoW, to the subsequent events until the loss of contact, to the following "official" submitted reports and to the whole "regrettable aftermath".


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: 1906
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:57 pm

Hello All,
I would concur with the previous. I don't think it is fair to say that Antonio's proposal has been 'fully confirmed' at all. This is not to say that it is not reasonable or credible, just that it may -- or may not -- be correct. At least in my mind, the validity of Mr. Bonomi's proposal remains, at least in this forum, indeterminate.

It is certainly incorrect to assert that a lack of commentary, positive or negative, equates to concurrence. Lack of feedback really indicates nothing at all. In that regard, I would encourage other correspondents to weigh in, at least briefly, on Antonio's proposals as they now see it, i.e. to comment as to whether they consider it "probable", "indeterminate", or "wrong".

OK Briefly: indeterminate. And I do not concur with A&A.


If
William J. Jurens spent his working career teaching engineering graphics at the university level, and currently serves as an associate editor for Warship International.

Bill thinks it is indeterminate, based on the limited evidence available, it is indeterminate. This thread is dead until more evidence emerges.


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 » Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:19 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

if for you, ... as well as for Bill Jurens, ... and everybody else, ... this battle re-construction remains " indeterminate ", ... I can only realize that you are not able to determine and read in the correct way what has been already done and published in Storia Militare on December 2005 and recently made more precise on January 2017 about the 2 heavy cruisers real distance during the battle and the Court Martial aftermath.

Lucky me many others do not think it is " indeterminate " at all now in this world.

More, ... you and everybody else do have also the advantage to have had here in dozens of threads with full explanations from me directly, ... many precise and still not published inputs taken from official documents recently surfaced.

Lately, you had also the battlefield center precise determination with distances and geometry carefully explained too, ... step by step, ... taken by the hand.

If again for you everything remains ... " indeterminate ", ... be it, ... it is only your problem.

Now I can continue to analyze what happened after the second Bismarck turn, ... after the PG film that has been already perfectly determined too, ... just as I opened this thread for.

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 » Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:02 pm

Hello everybody,

now I think is possible to proceed with some analysis on the photos of the Bismarck taken after the NH 69727 ( taken at 06:05 and 30 seconds ).

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=30#p81231

When I wrote :
Now my question to everybody is : how many photos do you have on top of the 4 pics ( 17, 18, 19 and 20 here above ) I have attached to my article, ... to be associated to that Bismarck track 3rd period/section of the battle from 06:06 until 06:09 as said ?
Thanks for the cooperation, ... 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: 330
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by northcape » Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:12 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:02 pm
Hello everybody,

now I think is possible to proceed with some analysis on the photos of the Bismarck taken after the NH 69727 ( taken at 06:05 and 30 seconds ).

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=30#p81231

When I wrote :
Now my question to everybody is : how many photos do you have on top of the 4 pics ( 17, 18, 19 and 20 here above ) I have attached to my article, ... to be associated to that Bismarck track 3rd period/section of the battle from 06:06 until 06:09 as said ?
Thanks for the cooperation, ... Bye Antonio
So the photo was timed? How did they do this in 1941? This is a serious question, as your statement presents this as a historical fact.

If the photo was not timed in 1941, I would suggest to rephrase as

"now I think is possible to proceed with some analysis on the photos of the Bismarck taken after the NH 69727 ( which, according to my hypothesis, was taken at 06:05 and 30 seconds )."

Post Reply