PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

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: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Mar 02, 2019 7:59 am

Hello everybody,

it is more than clear who restarted the personal insults and offenses going off topics after Bill Jurens came onboard as moderator on this forum.

It is evident that Bill Jurens did not admonish the guy about this negative attitude, despite being invited by me personally twice.

In my personal opinion a clear position expressed in that moment would have resolved the matter once for good, ... but the opportunity has been lost.

Similarly it is available above here in the evidence that neither me nor Alberto Virtuani reacted to this " old " pre-moderator time type of attitude the way the guy ( Mr. Wadinga ) should have deserved, waiting for the authorities ( the moderator or the webmaster ) actions toward him to come.

Nothing happened so far.

The reason for that to be is always the same lately, a personal attack about a well defined argument discussed in the past on this historical forum, and the intention to try to personally disqualify the persons ( me and Alberto Virtuani ) who have had and still have a different opinion about it.

If this historical forum has subjects ( sacred cows ) that cannot be utilized for an historical discussion, someone is better to make it clear.

In the case that a defined group of persons, ... once certain arguments are on the table of discussion, ... are trying to eliminate the discussion by leaving the history forum, ... or even worst, ... started insulting forum members in order to limit or try to close the discussion going on, ... well, ... this attitude speaks by itself already very evidently, ... and clearly defines where the real problem is.

The freedom to express a personal opinion about every argument is guaranteed by the democracy, and someone is better to remember it.

If their doubt is about a tendency they see on us to speak negatively about the Royal Navy officers, ... which of course has not any reason to be at all, ... I invite them to read my and Alberto Virtuani article about the Commanders of the HMS Ardent and HMS Acasta on those just published ( in Italian ) 2 magazines :

Glorious_February_March_SM_magazine_covers.jpg
Glorious_February_March_SM_magazine_covers.jpg (90.08 KiB) Viewed 1022 times

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 )

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by paul.mercer » Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:16 am

Gentlemen,
Please, please stop this now, it is getting us nowhere except to possibly helping to destroy this forum. Over the years members like Alberto, Antonio, Byron, Dave, Wadinga and many others have been very kind and patient in answering what probably seems to them my rather naive questions and I thank them all for taking the time to give me the benefit of their expert knowledge.
I find it very distressing to see this wonderful forum tearing itself apart over subjects that happened many years ago and while we can perhaps form a fairly reliable picture of what happened from the collective knowledge of everyone, surely we have to accept that after all this time there can never be an exact replication of the event.
Having seen similar disagreements over various topics in the past I do feel that criticism of Bill Jurens handling of the forum is rather harsh as he has only taken on the job as moderator fairly recently and it must seem to him as if he has got hold of the ‘Poisoned Challis.
It really is not good to see members who have contributed so much to this forum attacking each other in this way, it is clear that there are very strong feelings on all sides, but for the sake of this forum and its future I would ask everyone to tone down the rhetoric and accept that all of us may have different views which should be respected and as Byron said in his last post, agree to disagree’.
Paul

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by dunmunro » Sat Mar 02, 2019 4:20 pm

The basic problem, and I think we all know this, is that two members of the board are advancing a rather outlandish and highly improbable thesis that there was a high level conspiracy in the RN to cover up and distort events surrounding the sinking of the Hood and Bismarck. A possible origin of this thesis seems to have come from the wide variation between events recorded by the RN in the MTO and some post war Italian historians who have accused the RN of falsifying their records to minimize the effectiveness of the RMI during WW2.

It is hard not to have acrimony when one side of a discussion tries to use the established historical record, based upon contemporaneous sources, and the other side feels free to simply invent facts willy-nilly or advance highly improbable theories based upon recollections far removed from the events under discussion.

A case in point here is the failure of the radar systems on PoW. The fact that PoW's radars failed in the 1st action is well established and supported by reports written at the time events transpired. Yet the failure of her radars is hotly disputed because the thesis being advanced is that Leach was a coward who took his fully operational and efficient battleship out of the line of battle for no reason at all, except for his personal cowardice. This thesis requires that PoW had no faults that were not also present on the KM side, so if PoW's radars failed then the KM's must have as well, so that both sides were under the same disadvantages.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by dunmunro » Sat Mar 02, 2019 4:46 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:36 pm
Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "This is a quote from Brinkmann via PE's war dairy:
Evidently, it is far superior to our EM II radar in its range and accuracy. [2 comments by
Brinkmann in margin]. Perhaps the English [are] already using this instrument for. target
acquisition, since the first salvos [fired] at Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were very near the ships......."
Apparently Brinkmann considered a "defective radar" to be able to produce a better firing solution than German radars.... not bad Mr.Dunmunro ! This is a good point demonstrating that also the Germans had no real help from the radars.

Oh, sorry, I forgot Mr.Dunmunro's imaginative following explanation: that Brinkmann was wrong about almost everything he wrote but the precision of Hood firing.... He even imagine that Hood got a radar range despite the fact she did not pass any range (as expected) to PoW...
Hood fired at least 10 salvos, the last ones with all turrets, after arcs were open, hitting nothing.
PoW hit Bismarck at 6th salvo, when Y turret was still not bearing ,firing 2 guns in average per salvo (A1 was out of action + breakdowns).
Hood fired very poorly, not even putting a single splinter on board PG, just...sea water... while PoW shooting was remarkable, despite the initial overestimation of the range, but this is extremely difficult to admit for Mr.Dunmunro for the obvious reasons lucidly explained by Adm.Santarini. :lol:


Santarini_pag.54_Bismarck_Performance.jpg




@Bill Jurens: (oh yes, I'm actually screaming)
when I read the following kind of insults from a guy who invented the above :
Dunmunro wrote (my bold): "When you make uninformed or trolling statements such as "... radar is not very useful once range is acquired..." you can expect a sharp reply since that is completely false and a rather shocking statement from someone who should have acquired some knowledge of WWII naval fire control by now."
I wonder what you are doing as moderator (see also Wadinga post here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=45#p82293).
I had already warned you that I would have not tolerated anymore ANY insult: you did NOTHING at all (after having repeatedly warned myself and Antonio for much less) against these two infesting guys, vomiting their low insults since days.

I formally ask Mr.Rico to remove you from this role, that you are clearly unable to play (or that you cannot play simply because you sit with one side). You have come even to the point of covering the silence of these guys (when asked to contribute to the battle reconstruction) and finally of defending their "indeterminateness" theory, even if I have to recognize that, coming from them, indeterminateness is much, much more credible than their "crazy theories" (e.g. BS on course 270° since 5:55, BS open fire at 5:53, PG film showing Hood splashes, BS inactivity periods while firing, etc.etc....

From my side, I don't recognize anymore your authority on this forum and I will come back treating the RN hooligans as they deserve.
As Antonio wrote: "enough is enough."



@Dunmunro:
perhaps Mr.Dunmunro forgets that I used to be a gunnery officer, studying these aspects at school, while he was comfortably sitting in his armchair and that I had already to correct his trivial errors more than once regarding gunnery. Apparently it's him who has lost any knowledge of WWII naval fire control by now (clearly not only "poor old sailors" get stoned over the years...).
As everybody knows, once the range, speed and inclination are correctly acquired, a radar input can only be useful if the target changes its course/speed: it was not the case for Bismarck that was sailing straight 220° all the time.



Bye, Alberto
The key points is that Brinkmann personally experienced the accuracy of Hood's opening salvos and stated that they were accurate. Brinkmann and PE was ahead of Bismarck and was in no position to observe the initial salvos from PoW which were considerably beyond Bismarck.
perhaps Mr.Dunmunro forgets that I used to be a gunnery officer, studying these aspects at school, while he was comfortably sitting in his armchair and that I had already to correct his trivial errors more than once regarding gunnery. Apparently it's him who has lost any knowledge of WWII naval fire control by now (clearly not only "poor old sailors" get stoned over the years...).
As everybody knows, once the range, speed and inclination are correctly acquired, a radar input can only be useful if the target changes its course/speed: it was not the case for Bismarck that was sailing straight 220° all the time.
Statements like these are just invitations for a sarcastic reply... :lol:

Radar gave a stream of continuous accurate and consistent ranges that could establish that the target was maintaining a given course and range rate. Optical RFs would give intermittent ranges of poor accuracy, and because their accuracy and consistency was poor these poor data inputs would either cause the FC computer to compute a false range and inclination for the target or greatly slow down the FC computer's ability to arrive at a correct solution.

So you have access to a report from Bismarck stating that she steered an absolutely straight and unwavering 220° course throughout the 1st action?

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:58 pm

I thank participants for their expressed opinions, all of which I will accept as being put forth in a constructive, though perhaps not in a tactful manner. As moderator, I do have several powers which I did not have previously, i.e. the ability to ban members and the ability to edit posts which I feel might contain inappropriate comment. I propose to use those only as a last -- a very last -- resort.

But we are approaching that territory where, as in society, some individuals may have to be removed from the society, or otherwise muzzled, for the society itself to continue.

I would propose, as an immediate alternative, the following.

a) That each member who wishes to do so may make one additional comment on this thread. I'll repeat that again. ONE. No subsequent reply permitted. You say your piece and you take your seat. After that, this particular thread shall be considered effectively closed, i.e. locked. I would hope the 'lock' would be enforced voluntarily. For reference purposes thread shall be considered locked 24 hours from the time of the posting you are reading now.

b) That a voluntary 'cooling off' period be established, where no postings -- other than innocuous commentary -- be made for a 24 hour period thereafter.

c) That the comment be addressed to the moderator rather than be directed to any specific member. This is the same process used in parliamentary and senatorial debates where it us usual to address commentary to "Mr. (or Ms.) Speaker" rather than to a member of the opposition. This does not place the moderator in any position of judgement, it just removes any implication of direct personal attack.

d) That that comment, though it may refer to the validity of various theses and/or historical research techniques, may not mention any other participant by name.

I would ask participants, particularly the more militant factions, to step back a bit, take a deep breath, make -- if they wish to do so -- ONE final tactfully-phrased comment summarizing their position(s), and respect the 24 hour cooling off period. After that, threads may commence again.

I would suggest as a first step that the first new thread would be directed towards establishing a set of common and mutually acceptable protocols for further discussion, to be conducted in a manner which would, as much as possible, try to bring members together rather than to tear them apart. In that regard, participants might wish to review the posting guidelines that Mr. Rico has put up on the Home page of this forum. If we all followed those, we'd be fine.

Bill Jurens.

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by paul.mercer » Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:53 am

Thanks Bill,
I stand by my last post in which I pleaded with everyone to tone down the rhetoric.
If you are going to close down this thread, perhaps you might also consider also closing down 'If Bismarck had made it to France' which showed signs of going the same way is this one.
Let us accept that there will always be occasions when we will have to 'agree to disagree' on some subjects, so let's shake hands across the divide and be friends again and use our collective knowledge for the benefit of each other and this forum.
Paul

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by HMSVF » Sun Mar 03, 2019 1:46 pm

Bill Jurens wrote:
Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:58 pm
I thank participants for their expressed opinions, all of which I will accept as being put forth in a constructive, though perhaps not in a tactful manner. As moderator, I do have several powers which I did not have previously, i.e. the ability to ban members and the ability to edit posts which I feel might contain inappropriate comment. I propose to use those only as a last -- a very last -- resort.

But we are approaching that territory where, as in society, some individuals may have to be removed from the society, or otherwise muzzled, for the society itself to continue.

I would propose, as an immediate alternative, the following.

a) That each member who wishes to do so may make one additional comment on this thread. I'll repeat that again. ONE. No subsequent reply permitted. You say your piece and you take your seat. After that, this particular thread shall be considered effectively closed, i.e. locked. I would hope the 'lock' would be enforced voluntarily. For reference purposes thread shall be considered locked 24 hours from the time of the posting you are reading now.

b) That a voluntary 'cooling off' period be established, where no postings -- other than innocuous commentary -- be made for a 24 hour period thereafter.

c) That the comment be addressed to the moderator rather than be directed to any specific member. This is the same process used in parliamentary and senatorial debates where it us usual to address commentary to "Mr. (or Ms.) Speaker" rather than to a member of the opposition. This does not place the moderator in any position of judgement, it just removes any implication of direct personal attack.

d) That that comment, though it may refer to the validity of various theses and/or historical research techniques, may not mention any other participant by name.

I would ask participants, particularly the more militant factions, to step back a bit, take a deep breath, make -- if they wish to do so -- ONE final tactfully-phrased comment summarizing their position(s), and respect the 24 hour cooling off period. After that, threads may commence again.

I would suggest as a first step that the first new thread would be directed towards establishing a set of common and mutually acceptable protocols for further discussion, to be conducted in a manner which would, as much as possible, try to bring members together rather than to tear them apart. In that regard, participants might wish to review the posting guidelines that Mr. Rico has put up on the Home page of this forum. If we all followed those, we'd be fine.

Bill Jurens.
Hi Bill,

Eminently sensible approach.

Personally I found very it interesting when you tried the "lets start from scratch and agree on a starting point" approach as became evident that even that was a contentious issue. I think half the problem is down to how people determine the available evidence and the their approach to its usage. Effectively IMHO it almost comes down to a qualitative/quantitative debate. Who is right? Who is wrong? God knows!

What we do know is that 1400 odd sailors were immolated/drowned and that the wreck of HMS Hood lies on the bottom of the ocean.


Keep up the good work.



HMSVF

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by northcape » Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:24 pm

Mr. Speaker, this is my opinion:

I hope this will be a closure to a historically completely irrelevant and at the same time impossible exercise: The attempt to prove that a reconstruction of the ship tracks in the DS battle is possible with an accuracy of

(1) better than 30 seconds in time,
(2) better than 5 degrees in bearings
(3) better than 1000 m of distances between ships.

(1) to (3) refer to an average over the entire battle, not for some singular and selected points in time. It is impossible because of the lack of observations, the lack of a quantitative understanding of the accuracy of the existing observations, and even more simply because there is no ground truth (something like GPS tracks) where any hypothesis could be verified against.

If we define "relevance" as something having implications beyond personal interest and passion about certain events, then this whole discussion is highly irrelevant. No new conclusions on further historical events could be drawn from such a detailed map. We already know which ships were involved, how they got sunk, and where their wrecks are. We know the tactical and strategical implications of this dramatic course of events. RElated to this, even if there would be a definitive proof that somebody uttered the words "court martial!", this would have zero relevance for any historical reconstructions. It just would show that, well, somebody had some strong feelings about something. Furter down the imaginary road, the derived conclusion that the uttering of those words indicates "cowardice" , is again just a personal opinion of somebody, who was not involved in the events. I fail to see how such an opinion, formulated 70 years after the events, should have any implications on history. An opinion is an opinion, and not a fact which can be used to falsify existing historic reconstructions.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3565
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Mar 03, 2019 10:11 pm

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote on Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:58 pm (my bold underlined): "a) That each member who wishes to do so may make one additional comment on this thread. I'll repeat that again. ONE. No subsequent reply permitted. You say your piece and you take your seat. After that, this particular thread shall be considered effectively closed, i.e. locked. I would hope the 'lock' would be enforced voluntarily. For reference purposes thread shall be considered locked 24 hours from the time of the posting you are reading now."
@ Mr.Jurens,
are your rules valid also for your side here :?:
Why is this "forum member" allowed to break the silence, after the 24 hours provided to express an opinion ?

I have forced myself to comply with your above recommendations, but (as already said) if they are impudently ignored, I will do the same and I will answer to this further provocation, coming from a person not able to respect the rules.



Northcape wrote on Sun Mar 03, 2019 at 7:24 pm: "I hope this will be a closure to an historically completely irrelevant and at the same time impossible exercise: The attempt to prove that a reconstruction of the ship tracks in the DS battle is possible with an accuracy of.... "
Nope! :negative: "Impossible exercise" only for the ones who, having seen that their loved "official version of facts" has been proven incorrect by now, would have preferred the "indeterminateness" and the "fog of war" as a "last hope"...

The reconstruction of Antonio Bonomi is complete, precise and (by now) unchallenged: it allows to evaluate the "conduct" of each commanding officer involved.
Please keep in mind that another guy tried (almost 78 years ago) to produce a "less annoying" battlemap, enlarging the battlefield, for the purpose of a board of inquiry: the poor Pinchin failed miserably with his "Plot".

The blatant inability to propose a different position for the ships than the one reconstructed based on original and official documents by Antonio Bonomi (further confirmed by "poor old sailors" memoirs later...) shows clearly how the above statement is incorrect. If other tracks were possible (respecting the known evidences) they had all the time to propose them here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=360#p82075: apparently there is no other solution than Antonio's one (with its tolerances, of course), because putting a ship in another position will not match with the cross-bearings we have in the reports written at the very time of facts.



Re. historical irrelevance of the words "Court Martial", I agree that a menaced disciplinary action doesn't change the fact that Bismarck was finally sunk on May 27.
However, it obviously explains why the official reports (and the incorrect story comfortably sold by the British to the world for 75+ years) were intentionally "embellished" to present a better version of facts.



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: 665
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:33 pm

So far as I know, basically all of the postings so far have been submitted within the suggested time-limit. There may have been some confusion regarding time zones and date lines, etc., some difficulties with individuals who perhaps don't visit the forum every day, and perhaps some time differences between the recorded time I posted and the times that may have accompanied my posting on other people's computers. It's the spirit of the thing that counts -- I did want to have a situation where everyone who wanted to could present what in a courtroom situation would probably be called 'closing arguments', and to interrupt the often vitriolic back-and-forth for a bit and allow tempers to cool. I'm am surprised to see how few members, so far, have decided to contribute. Whether this is a good, bad, or indifferent sign of things to come, remains to be seen.

The allegedly "late" posting by Northcape would seem to represent a model of civility and decorum. Nicely done. Mr. Virtuani's posting is somewhat less tactful, but I will in this instance -- and this will be the last instance -- allow his comparatively agressive tone to stand on the basis that he may have felt some injustice was being done. That sort of tone -- by any member and for any reason -- will have to stop, though.

I am not exactly certain as to how to proceed from here. I think, overall, at least regarding Denmark Strait and related issues, once discussion recommences, and assuming that what ever model we have evolved up to a few days ago is, for whatever reasons, not working too well, we have four basic options.

a) Essentially ban further discussion of Denmark Strait issues outright for a while. This idea would be waived only to present some new and significant evidence on either side. Unless we have a hidden agenda to consume ever-increasing doses of blood-pressure medications, there would seem to be little point in simply re-hashing the same evidence over and over again. I would suggest that as a guideline, 'new' evidence might be defined as material that has not been seen or discussed before. In that regard, what might be 'new' to one participant, fairly inexperienced, might not be anything close to new for we who have been travelling this road for a while. So, in summary, this process would by and large take Denmark Strait discussions, off the books.

b) Allow discussion on Denmark Strait to continue, but limit discussion to purely tactical and technical issues. This would allow 'nuts and bolt' discussion, but exclude political issues revolving around the motivations of various participants (both then and now), including discussions involving 'cover-ups'.

For what it is worth, if we do choose to proceed, I think this is the best way to go, though as many have pointed out, the ambiguity and dearth of objective evidence, and the accuracy with which it was probably recorded may make any realistic resolution impossible. Mssrs Bonomi and Virtuani seem to feel that they have been able, either individually or in consort, to create a reconstruction of considerable accuracy. Others, as we have seen, disagree. My personal opinion is that if any progress is to be made along these lines at all, it will have to derive from very carefully focused analysis on relatively small parts of the action individually, i.e. initially deciding what issues can be taken as-read by common consensus, e.g. 'Four ships were involved, Hood, Bismark, Prince of Wales, and Prinz Eugen", and deciding which specific supporting evidence might be considered the most reliable and -- perhaps equally important at least in the cases of inconsistency -- which sets of observations might be considered of lesser virtue. We started out along that path a few months ago when we began to attempt to establish various ranges, leg lengths and angles via fairly rigorous rules used in surveying, etc., but for a variety of reasons, including a bit of reluctance on my part to 'take sides' as moderator, and to allow the discussion to wander a bit, don't seem to have made much progress.

c) Allow discussion on Denmark Strait to continue along more-or-less political lines, exploring the alleged British conspiracy in detail and allowing the continuation of a sort of technical-political amalgam of disagreement. I don't think this is the place for a purely political forum, and experience seems to have shown that a political/technical amalgam seems only to be driving participants away, so I would consider this option, i.e. option c, highly unsatisfactory.

d) Do something else, i.e. something that I have not listed under a, b, and c, above.

I still think it useful to take a 24 hour moratorium on posting to this thread, and before starting a new one -- or perhaps new ones -- to try to move forward. I'd ask posters, particularly those who have not posted recently to try to conform to that.

A final reminder that I consider it imperative that future postings, by all participants, be presented in an articulate and respectful manner. Further vitriolic outbursts -- from any participant or on any subject -- will be dealt with via an escalating series of penalties. Don't make me do that...

Comments, after the cooling off period is over, very welcome indeed.

Best to all from Winnipeg...

Bill Jurens

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by José M. Rico » Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:20 am

Dear forum members,

Bill Jurens has my full support on his role as forum moderator, and I ask all users without exception to follow his commands and advice. If anybody feels incapable to comply with Bill Jurens' instructions, perhaps it would be the right time to take a break from the board and come back when you feel ready to do so.

As moderator, Mr. Jurens has now the power to lock threads, edit posts, and ultimately ban users if he thinks that is necessary to bring back order. Maybe all what is needed are just a couple of "7-day bans" after all...

I don't like banning people, but neither I want this to get out of control and see long time members leave to never come back. It is either that, or I just close the forum down.

José

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Reopening the threads

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:33 am

My thanks to Mr. Rico and others who have offered their support, and to those who have chosen to respect this brief moratorium on posting.

I think enough time has elapsed so that we can safely re-open the forum again.

My sincere hope, which I assume all share, is that we can hereafter commence and maintain a collegial, respectful, and informative series of debates and discussions.

Suggestions as to where we might proceed from here are most welcome. Although I may be the conductor on this train of mutual interest, in the final analysis, it is the membership that buys the tickets.

Best from Winnipeg...

Bill Jurens.

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by northcape » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:33 pm

I propose to end the "discussion" on the DS battle map, which essentially is an ongoing clash of opinions without the possibility for any relevant outcome or conclusions of significance.
Ending the discussion can only be achieved on a voluntary basis - e.g. not responding any more if the same old chain of opinions is repeated again, no matter from where and in which context they will pop up. They promoters of the court martial agenda propose to publish their opinions in a book anyway, so there will be a dedicated place for that.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3565
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:29 am

Hello everybody,

I do propose to continue a discussion that has anyway allowed so many new, never published evidences to surface in the last years, following the new rules and recommendations proposed by the moderator and the webmaster. I feel that most of us have exceeded recently, in their fervor and I hope I'm mentioning both sides "failures" below.

What is needed is that the moderator ensures that tones are kept low from both sides, without any personal insult (e.g. idiocy, ignorance, incompetence, redaction of documents, mathematical/geometrical data manipulation) but also any allusion (e.g. backside scope in this discussion like: making money with books, alleged RN defense crusades, personal hate for any of the involved protagonist, refusal to reconstruct the battle a priori).
Any initial further provocation / violation of the rules (intentional or not) should be immediately stopped and severely sanctioned, from any side it comes from, without waiting the (over) reaction of one side.

Of course the technical reconstruction of the battle is one topic, while the "regrettable aftermath" story is a different topic: they should be kept separate: also the discipline in respecting the thread topic is fundamental. In addition, the recommendation to post only one observation at a time should be followed to allow any further progress.


However, I honestly don't see how, in a forum dedicated to Bismarck, the discussion about the DS can be prevented.

Regarding "political discussions", I agree that they should be avoided if related to political ideas, but I don't consider the "Court Martial" or the "Cover-Up" subjects as being "political" in this sense: they surely involve political subjects (e.g. W.Churchill), but if treated from a pure historical viewpoint based on official or historical documents they should be allowed. What should be avoided are accusations like "revisionism", "denial at any cost", "nationalistic approach", etc.


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: 1963
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:00 pm

Hello All,

Having been away for a few days, I would like to clarify two matters:

It has been suggested that the Moderator should apply sanctions against those whose position is:
refusal to reconstruct the battle a priori
I believe he has previously indicated that it is not a requirement to create and justify yet another alternative scenario in order to be allowed to comment on the radical new interpretation being so assiduously and relentlessly promoted here for so many years. For many of us, it is completely valueless, and for even the most diplomatic commentators, including I believe Bill Jurens of Winnipeg, who lectures in cartography, the validity of this alternative mapping to the accepted view is indeterminate despite all the "evidence" provided and is therefore not proven.

One should not have to prove the Earth is round to be allowed to dismiss the arguments of Flat Earthers. Or to be constrained into having to produce detailed mathematical and engineering evidence that the carapaces of even giant turtles are inadequate to support its weight in order to disprove their existence and therefore the validity of the theory proposed.
Of course the technical reconstruction of the battle is one topic, while the "regrettable aftermath" story is a different topic: they should be kept separate
This would be possible if the promoters (and sole adherents) of the radical alternative did not allege that the evidence from British sources, and only from British sources, and only those parts which specifically contradict their assertions, and which might have been used for any technical reconstruction, have been deliberately altered from reality as part of a sophisticated and organized plan to mislead and misinform.

Therefore: Will the Moderator/Website owner insist that alternative proposals are a prerequisite for further postings criticizing the radical theory as requested? I hope he will clarify that unrestricted exposure of its myriad shortcomings will continue to be allowed. Also that statements like "it is well proven" and
complete, precise and (by now) unchallenged
will be disallowed since the majority of those posting here clearly do not believe it has.

Confirm that, for instance, where poor mathematical models are presented, eg a single sample rate of fire over an extended period, compared with a minute by minute sampling, or there is the presentation of highly misleading excerpts at odds with the tenet of a larger document, the contradiction or exposure of these statements would not constitute a "personal insult" as proscribed in the rules for this website. Also they certainly do not constitute a provocation for over-reaction and real personal insults like assertions of idiocy, ignorance, hooliganism, sheep-like behaviour etc

This technical argument cannot be resolved on the basis of the limited amount of evidence available. I continue to hope the excellent Mr Rico has success in tracking down Das Gefecht in der Dänemarkstraße. Artilleriegefechtsbericht "Prinz Eugen" B.Nr. G 2243 vom 12.7.1941.



All the best

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

Locked