PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
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 2:15 pm

Hello everybody,

I don't feel that the above post of Mr.Wadinga (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=75#p82335) goes exactly in the direction indicated by the moderator and the webmaster to restore reciprocal respect, but I leave to them the judgement of his tones. I will (for this last time) answer only to specific statements and not to provocations with provocations:

Wadinga wrote: "One should not have to prove the Earth is round to be allowed to dismiss the arguments of Flat Earthers."
... but (as already said) one should be able to propose (even theoretically) a different track for the 6 ships involved on May 24 than the one of Antonio's reconstruction (matching the available evidences). If not, it means the ships simply cannot be moved (as Pinchin realized himself with his "Plot"), because this would counter other evidences.
If any alternative scenario could be decently proposed, only than we could speak about "indeterminateness", else there is only one solution.


Wadinga wrote: "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."
Disregarding the provocations here (again to Mr.Jurens and Mr.Rico to judge), the reconstruction from Antonio shows clearly German side alterations to their records too in order to justify some officers, as done in any organization in the world since centuries... Obviously, due to the outcome of the battle, British had quite more urgent needs to embellish their records.

Linking the reconstruction to the "regrettable aftermath" is simply logical, however my recommendation was just to keep the two arguments separated in different threads and not mixing everything together.


Wadinga wrote: "Also that statements like "it is well proven" and "complete, precise and (by now) unchallenged" will be disallowed...."
...much less than statements like "well-concocted ziggurat of suppositions", "conspiracy theory", "misleading excerpts" (when full text is available on public archives), or "poor mathematical" (when no alternative study is proposed, once again), etc. referred to someone else work, mostly based on official documents, original letters and published books.

I had tried to list some examples but apparently there are many more behaviors that should be avoided for the future. Thanks to Mr.Wadinga for (very knowledgeably) adding new ones, once back from his absence...


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: 2105
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 5:13 pm

Hello Alberto,

I thought my post was very much in the new style, but there we differ.

Can you explain why Conspiracy Theory (ist) should be construed as a personal insult? You have asserted a Theory that a Conspiracy took place. It's a Conspiracy Theory.

It is a widely misunderstood term but correct usage is clear Wikipedia:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event". It cites a 1909 article in The American Historical Review as the earliest usage example
and
The political scientist Michael Barkun, discussing the usage of "conspiracy theory" in contemporary American culture, holds that this term is used for a belief that explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end
Equally we have revisionism also misconstrued as an insult, but thanks to Wikipedia:
In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then provokes a revised history.
I cannot see why the terms Revisionist and Conspiracy theorist cannot be applied fairly to, and proudly accepted by yourselves in proposing this radical alternative to the accepted view.

I'm sorry I can't follow this point:
... but (as already said) one should be able to propose (even theoretically) a different track for the 6 ships involved on May 24 than the one of Antonio's reconstruction (matching the available evidences). If not, it means the ships simply cannot be moved (as Pinchin realized himself with his "Plot"), because this would counter other evidences.
If any alternative scenario could be decently proposed, only than we could speak about "indeterminateness", else there is only one solution.
No other parties think there is enough corroborated evidence to propose a map in competition with the accepted view. That does not make Antonio's proposal correct or proven.

I cannot see anything wrong with my statement beginning:
This would be possible if the promoters (and sole adherents)
You surely cannot deny you are the promoters and as yet nobody else here has agreed with you.
shows clearly German side alterations to their records too in order to justify some officers
Could you give an example, or several of this, to set against the wholesale falsification alleged against the British?
"poor mathematical" (when no alternative study is proposed, once again)
Indeed, once again there is insufficient data on Bismarck's firing, to counter this very poor IMHO mathematical analysis, X shots divided by Y minutes, doesn't say anything useful about rate of fire, which can vary markedly over time. We have very precise information on PoW's rate of fire. Fabricating an alternate theory based on insufficient data would surely be dishonest.

All the best

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

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:42 pm

The new discussions, so far, though perhaps a bit aggressively-toned in the occasional phrase, should they not escalate, would seem to be at least translatable into 'fair comment'. I am appreciative that correspondents now seem to be exercising more discretion in their submissions. Let's try not to escalate.

This new thread seems to be travelling along what is perhaps a more potentially fruitful path insofar as it is -- or seems to be -- more directed towards historical methodology than argument over the truth or falsity of specific facts. It is, I think,important to reach, early-on, some common ground on exactly how different one might assess the relative credibility of different pieces of evidence or observation.

There is, it appears, on one side, claims that:

a) It is possible to reconstruct, with at least moderate accuracy and precision, something resembling a 'true' track chart for the Denmark Strait action.

and

b) That manufacturing an accurate reconstruction has been hampered by various and sundry attempts on the part of the Germans and the British --presumably primarily the latter -- to deliberately suppress and distort the record.

Two questions, one primarily technical, and one primarily historical, might follow, viz.:

1) IS it possible to reconstruct, as in a) above, "...something resembling a 'true' track chart for the Denmark Strait action"?

and

2) Is the existing collection of records, which most would agree is clearly less than ideal, due to accident or subterfuge?"

My sense of it is that we might make more progress more quickly if we attempt to discuss either 1) or 2) independently, especially, as suggested above, the first would appear to represent the analysis and evaluation of more-or-less purely technical material, whereas the second would involve more highly-charged political interpretations.

It might also be useful at this stage, if we are to continue with Denmark Strait at all, to get an idea of exactly what, if anything, the current consensus is. Two members, Mr. Virtuani and Mr. Bonomi, clearly stand on one side. There may be others, and it would be interesting to find out who and how many they are. My sense of it is that a somewhat larger cadre of members, though not formally counted or named here, occupy some middle ground, essentially what might be termed the 'indeterminate' group. How large this contingent might be also remains to be discovered. My perception is that an intermediately-sized contingent of members, again not specifically named here, but I think fairly well represented by Wadinga as an example, feel that either or both of arguments a) and b) above, are clearly and demonstrably false.

I am wondering if it is worthwhile conducting some sort of poll, perhaps 'back channel' to attempt to determine exactly how large each contingent is, i.e. to determine to what degree, at least on this forum, Mssrs. Bonomi and Virtuani stand alone.

Comments welcome...

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
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 7:49 pm

Hello everybody,

while totally disagreeing with the "moderator" judgement (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82339#p82338) of the tones used by Mr.Wadinga (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=75#p82335), I will try to answer him with the same "fair discretion":

Wadinga wrote: "I cannot see why the terms Revisionist and Conspiracy theorist cannot be applied fairly to, and proudly accepted by yourselves in proposing this radical alternative to the accepted view."
therefore I cannot see why the terms "Denier at any cost" and " RN fairy tales teller" cannot be applied fairly, and proudly accepted by Mr.Wadinga, in refusing to read and accept what is present in his own archives.
I was hoping (in vain) that the "moderator" would have banned the above provocative (and in case of "Revisionist", even heavily politically insinuating) terms of Mr.Wadinga, but it looks like they are still allowed here....


Wadinga wrote: "No other parties think there is enough corroborated evidence to propose a map in competition with the accepted view. That does not make Antonio's proposal correct or proven. "
Yes it does, because if no other solution is possible (and no one has presented a decent alternative), than the only solution is the proposed one. Antonio's battlemap is published, respects all available evidences and nobody was able to prove it wrong.
As the ships were there that day and as there is nobody able to propose a decent battlemap, radically different from Antonio's one, then the battlemap of Antonio has to be considered correct ("tertium non datur").
btw, what does "accepted view" means ? We can compare a map with another map of similar detail, not with a "fairy tale illustration" (while a map comparison is not favorable to Pinchin's map vs Antonio's).


Wadinga wrote: "Could you give an example...."
Of course, I can. It's enough to look at Reimann declared distances (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... _chart.jpg) supported by his commanding officer Brinkmann in his battlemap (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... tlemap.gif) vs the real minimum distance between PG and enemy....
Does anybody think Brinkmann was stupid and was not able to read Jasper report and correct the distances (as Schmundt anyway "suggested" him...) ?


Wadinga wrote: "X shots divided by Y minutes, doesn't say anything useful about rate of fire"
No comment should be needed to counter such a statement. Average values are average values both for PoW (that did not fire at the same pace in her 8,6 minutes engagement http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... encIVa.gif) and Bismarck.
If anybody can refute an average value based on a mere 9 or 14 minutes battle (and in view of no evidence whatsoever that Bismarck fire was interrupted at any time: PG KTB states exactly the contrary at least for the cruiser...) then no point in going on with such discussion but please let's avoid comments on "poor mathematical" figures.
I'm waiting for anyone to propose an alternative Bismarck salvo sequence (trying not to repeat the "errors" of putting Bismarck on 270° since the early stages of the battle, of course, correctly interpreting what the PG film and the photos tell us....).



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: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:21 am

In response to Wadinga, and in support of the validity of Mr. Bonomi's track chart, Mr. Virtuani wrote (in part):

"...if no other solution is possible (and no one has presented a decent alternative), than the only solution is the proposed one." and "...as there is nobody able to propose a decent battlemap, radically different from Antonio's one, then the battlemap of Antonio has to be considered correct ("tertium non datur")."

I don't quite follow some of the logic here. In particular, I am not sure precisely how formally Mr. Vituani intends his reference to "tertium non datur", which I take to be essentially congruent to what in English is usually considered to be the "Principle of the Excluded Middle." This principle can be utilized in conversation with varying degrees of rigor, so submitting it to full critical analysis at this point would be unfair were it intended only informally.

I suppose I am uncertain whether Mr. Virtuani's argument is presented in an inductive or deductive form. My understanding is that the Excluded Middle is usually only applied in formal deductive structures, and is not really very applicable to inductive logical argument structures at all.

In any case, if my reading is correct, Mr. Virtuani seems to be presenting an argument of the following form:

a) Mr. Bonomi has postulated "A" as being correct.
b) Nobody has postulated a suitable alternative.
c) Mr. Bonomi's postulation, in Mr. Virtuani's words "...has to be considered correct."

At least as I read it, this formulation does not follow logically at all (for one thing, the definition of 'suitable' is somewhat arbitrary), so it would appear that either I have misread or misunderstood Mr. Virtuani's premises, or that I have made some error in fundamental logic.

I seek to understand. In that regard, I'd respectfully ask that Mr. Virtuani

a) specify more completely the degree of logical rigor to which he intended his reference to "tertium non datur".
b) specify whether he is intending his argument form to be inductive, deductive, or abductive in nature, and
c) restate, if possible, his logical argument form, inductive or otherwise, into something resembling the a), b), c) format above.

Regarding other issues, the reason I feel that 'revisionist' and 'conspiracy theorist' are (slightly) more acceptable than 'Denier at any cost' and 'RN fairy tales teller' is that in the first instance the terms tend to refer to the nature of the theory itself rather than the individual, whereas in the latter case, a more personal tone seems apparent. That being said, read objectively, the various formulations really are quite similar. I would suggest alternatives as follows:

'revisionist' -- no substitution required, so long as the reference is to the perceived nature of the theory rather than to an individual
'conspiracy theorist' -- I'd revise this to 'conspiracy theorists', i.e. render it plural so that it is not as sharply focussed.
'Denier at any cost' -- again, in the singular it might be seen as too sharply focused. 'Deniers at any cost', i.e. the plural, helps. Perhaps 'adamant deniers'?
'R.N. fairy tales teller' -- as before, in the singular it can be interpreted as offensive. Perhaps 'R.N. apologists'? The plural, in any case, helps. The use of the term 'fairy tale' implies deliberate subterfuge. "Apologist" does not.

One key, I think, would be to refrain as much as possible from addressing other correspondents directly by name. In parliamentary and governmental debates, one will note that comments are almost always prefaced with the statement "Mr. Speaker" or something similar, indicating that they are actually directed at the chairperson of the meeting rather than an individual opponent. Should it be necessary to refer to an opponent by name, an honorific is usually substituted for the name itself e.g. if a comment a comment directed towards "Ms. Johnston" would be rephrased as "The Honorable Member from Chatsworth". Being no psychologist, I don't know why this works, but my experience in chairing meetings suggests that it certainly does reduce the incidences of shouting matches. It's worth keeping in mind, anyway.


Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2105
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:54 am

Learned Friends,

It has been observed:
No comment should be needed to counter such a statement. Average values are average values both for PoW (that did not fire at the same pace in her 8,6 minutes engagement
Average values are indeed average values. And grossly misleading where the sample size is inadequate. The average population density of the Pitcairn Islands is 16 per sq km whereas that of Greenland is 0.067 despite the fact that 56,934 more people live in Greenland than the Pitcairn islands. It nonsensical to try and extrapolate a mathematical conclusion from such misused statistics.
and in view of no evidence whatsoever that Bismarck fire was interrupted at any time


Of course all ships' fire is interrupted when the guns are not actually firing. Since we have a continuous graphic record of PoW's firing, we could identify the enormous majority of one second samples when her guns were not firing. On several occasions there were very long sequences where her guns were not firing at all. Unfortunately, for Bismarck we have only one sample, the entire time she was supposed to be shooting (whatever that was, since we do not know when any of her shots went off) and her total of shells. Which is why a statistical comparison is invalid.


Does anybody think Brinkmann was stupid and was not able to read Jasper report and correct the distances?
We have already discussed this and I have observed that in my opinion it shows the mechanical repeater system transmitting ranges to both Brinkmann and Reimann was seriously in error. Such technical matters are of interest to many here, and seem far more likely than Senior Officers deliberately putting the wrong figures in reports and maps simply to shield underlings. Especially when in the same report they specifically highlight the same officer's shortcomings. Brinkmann clearly didn't bother to read the brief comments from Jasper he included in the report. A simple error is exaggerated into something more arcane.

I am glad the conventional definition of Conspiracy Theorists (plural is clearly more apposite in this case) is accepted and Revisionist has been accepted too, although dictionary definition of the latter as a noun is "a supporter of a policy of revision or modification" and as an adjective "advocating a policy of revision or modification.", both of which are surely applicable in this case.

All the best

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

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by northcape » Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:35 am

Bill Jurens wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:21 am
I
a) Mr. Bonomi has postulated "A" as being correct.
b) Nobody has postulated a suitable alternative.
c) Mr. Bonomi's postulation, in Mr. Virtuani's words "...has to be considered correct."
a) I postulate that, based on the measurements of the room temperature in my house, the innermost part of planet Saturn made of rubber.
b) Nobody else proposes a different material for the innermost part of planet Saturn, based on on room temperatures in their houses.
c) That is why the innermost part of planet Saturn has to be made of rubber.

Dear Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues who still believe in science, I reiterate my proposal to avoid joining such discussions. There is nothing to be gained, e.g. I consider the analogy to the flat earth scientists as a valid move to illustrate the impossibility of having a reasonable and/or fruitful discussion. Once the fundamentals of logic reasoning are no longer adhered to, I see little purpose in trying to "come to a mutual understanding and move forward". There is a fundamental rift between facts/logic and opinions, and a much wider rift between those who accept and understand this rift and those who don't.

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:58 am

I remain very interested in more deeply examining Mr. Virtuani's claim (if I get it right) that since (with the possible exception of Robert Winklareth) nobody has as as yet provided an alternative to Mr. Bonomi's track chart that Mr. Bonomi's track chart must be considered correct essentially by default.

I am waiting to hear back from Mr. Virtuani on this.

Let us see what his reply, based on purely logical constructs, might be...

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:57 am

Hello everybody,
I'm astonished (and not glad at all) that the "moderator" decided to authorize the usage of terms like "Revisionists", "Deniers", "Conspiracy Theorists" and "Fairy-Tale tellers". I find, especially the first two, having a very bad political nuance...
However it's his decision and we have (reluctantly) to cope with it.


Bill Jurens wrote: "I remain very interested in more deeply examining Mr. Virtuani's claim (if I get it right) that since (with the possible exception of Robert Winklareth) nobody has as as yet provided an alternative to Mr. Bonomi's track chart that Mr. Bonomi's track chart must be considered correct essentially by default."
I cannot express this point in another way. It' very simple:
Antonio has put together all available evidences (not reversing photos...) and he has reconstructed the battle in a way that is logical, congruent and verifiable.
On May 24 the ships were at DS, they moved according to physical laws, with known speeds and courses. As nobody was able to propose a different battlemap or even a different starting point in this thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=360#p82075), it simply means that there is no way to put the ships in another position than the one Antonio proposed.
If it was, not inventing evidences, like Bismarck on course 270° since 05:55..., the "adamant deniers" would have proposed it already in the right threads.
Pinchin failed trying to put the heavy cruisers at more than 15 sm from enemy and this further demonstrate the impossibility of another solution.

As there is no decent alternative, Antonio's reconstruction must be considered the correct one (at least until a better one will be eventually proposed).

I see and understand the need for "indeterminateness" to try to counter what cannot be countered geometrically, but as we don't speak quantum physics, the battle was actually very determinate.


Wadinga wrote "Average values are indeed average values. And grossly misleading where the sample size is inadequate"
With a battle lasting 9 or 14 minutes the sample is more than adequate and average values are the only meaningful ones, annoying as they can be.
PoW fired quite constantly but the RoF "slightly" varied during the engagement, the PG film and the photos + the accounts point to Bismarck fire not to have been varying significantly during the engagement (PG KTB confirms that PG fired also during turns) and the number of shells delivered allows to compare her effective RoF with PoW's.



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

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

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by paul.mercer » Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:13 am

Gentlemen,
While not sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to make any judgement on this particular debate, there are perhaps at least 10 or more books that have been published over the years on the first and the final Bismarck action, many of them expressing different views and opinions of what happened most of which have been discussed on numerous occasions on this Forum.
It would appear that Antonio and Alberto have made a careful study of the subject using whatever information they could find and have produced an alternative view of which some may or may not agree with. No doubt most of the members of this Forum have also read some or all of the available books and digested the information in them, so without taking sides in this matter, I find it a little strange that when two senior members put forward a different view that it should cause so much controversy.
I have always been impressed by the knowledge freely expressed in this Forum on Naval and other matters by our members,so they are obviously capable of assimilating what they have gleaned from other sources and are therefore able to accept that what has been put forward by Antonio and Alberto are just as valid a view any others that have been put elsewhere and that they are entitled to hold those views, whether or not others agree with them?

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:30 am

Hi Paul,

the point is exactly that Antonio' s battlemap is the only one proposing a reconstruction detailed enough to incorporate all evidences and showing also the position of the British heavy cruisers.

The published books until now have included generic battlemaps, not detailed as Antonio's one (e.g. the first version of Baron's book has a battlemap similar to Antonio's one). Some of them have included totally wrong maps (see Busch 1943 or the last version of the Baron book or more recently Adm Santarini). Some of them have even published Antonio's battlemap slightly changing its graphical appearance (see P.Toussaint recent book).

The sites like this one and Hood's website have published a map very similar to Antonio's one, albeit simplified.

No other forum member has been able to propose any different map (simply because moving a ship will not respect the cross-bearings available). That's why the "indeterminateness" theory is not acceptable IMO as Antonio's reconstruction is available and only a better one would be able to replace it.


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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1442
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:04 pm

Alberto,

IIRC all bearings were right in this map I posted along time ago.
ok.jpg
(77.94 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2105
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:11 pm

Esteemed Colleagues,

I believe use of the word gunnery twice in the thread title suggests this thread is about gunnery.
annoying as they can be.
PoW fired quite constantly but the RoF "slightly" varied during the engagement,
Not annoying per se, but a misguided, illogical and unscientific attempt to use averages in this case. Prince of Wales' rate of fire varied enormously, 20 seconds between salvoes 7 and 8 but 65 seconds between 4 and 5. Time of flight, hence allowance for observation of fall of shot is a factor, but a variation of 200% is hardly "slightly". Neither is the 100% difference between 6 & 7 and 7 & 8. There is no data at all for Bismarck to allow any comparative study, as it is all at the bottom of the Atlantic.

On a more philosophical note:
I have always been impressed by the knowledge freely expressed in this Forum on Naval and other matters by our members,so they are obviously capable of assimilating what they have gleaned from other sources and are therefore able to accept that what has been put forward by Antonio and Alberto are just as valid a view any others that have been put elsewhere and that they are entitled to hold those views, whether or not others agree with them?
Many members are not in the least bit capable of assimilating or accepting what Antonio and Alberto put forward, because it is entirely at odds with all those other sources, which include people who were there, as well as those whose professional expertise is in naval history, and so A&A's views are not as valid as any other.

Whilst there are minor differences within the Consensus or "established view"
many of them expressing different views and opinions of what happened most of which have been discussed on numerous occasions on this Forum.
None of them have alleged Cowardice, Conspiracy and Cover-up. The most Revisionist work of recent years merely suggested a cock-up in the photo-lab.

I do agree they are perfectly entitled to hold and even air those views, but I strenuously object to the idea that their opinions about matters of record are as "valid" as that enormous consensus which they lightly dismiss as "fairy tales", and to their oft-repeated assertions that their view is the only true, proven or correct one. I also believe it is right to continue to highlight the numerous shortcomings in their explanation for the benefit of those who may wish to become knowledgeable enough to make a judgement in the future.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:55 pm

Hello everybody,
Herr Nilsson wrote: "IIRC all bearings were right in this map I posted along time ago. "
Thanks therefore to Mr.Nilsson for not supporting the "indeterminateness fan club" and the "largely accepted view" here and for being the only one who had tried to reconstruct the battle with Antonio here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=345#p81828).
However, I have not seen the conclusion from his side about the initial set of measures/bearings on the same thread.



Wadinga wrote: "Prince of Wales' rate of fire varied enormously...There is no data at all for Bismarck ..."
...and despite that McMullen calculated the PoW gunnery performance averaging her RoF and getting the result I have proposed for comparison to Bismarck (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm).

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen_rounded.jpg
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen_rounded.jpg (56.43 KiB) Viewed 971 times

This shows clearly that the two ships fired in a fairly similar way from RoF viewpoint and that PoW fired better from an effective RoF.

The last sentence ("There is no data at all for Bismarck") is simply not correct: we know how many shells Bismarck fired (93) and this is enough to get her effective RoF, worse than PoW one.


Wadinga wrote: "None of them have alleged Cowardice, Conspiracy and Cover-up "
No, all of them have accepted the (proven intentionally incorrect) British official version presented by Tovey (PoW retreat time 06:13, Y turret jamming before the decision to disengage and heavy cruisers distance) and then used by writers to tell a fairy tale to the world about this battle.



Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:06 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you wrote :
IIRC all bearings were right in this map I posted along time ago
referencing your published map :

viewtopic.php?f=1&p=82350#p82349

I am glad that your are assuming the fact that all known bearings must match on an acceptable map on a 2019 work about the Denmark Strait battle, ... given what we have as evidence at hand available today.

This was not always the case on the last 78 years of publications, and in fact many maps on books shows incorrect maps once you compare them with the available official maps we have available today.

In fact today's acceptable DS battle maps could have been only realized after the PoW one ( gunnery and Rowell ) and the Prinz Eugen official one became available, ... and after the merging of the Pinchin plot showing Norfolk and Suffolk tracks too with the previously listed ones, ... realizing a final overall DS map just as I did, ... and just as you did on your example here attached.

Now, I think we are in agreement about the 4 Royal Navy warship tracks and their relative connections one must establish thru the relative bearings at a given time. No need to spend more time on those.

What is debatable and should be compared are the 2 German warship tracks, ... out of which I assume you would agree that the Prinz Eugen one is a given, ... because it is well known and it is available on her own battle map.

Now I am having difficulties due to the scale on realizing where you may think there are differences between your proposed map above and my map that is in revision anyhow, ... for the 2 British heavy cruisers positions and tracks compared to my 2005 published one, ... and they will be very close to where you are showing them to be here above, ... with those assumptions ( bearings ).

But leaving aside for a moment as said the 4 Royal Navy warships, ... where the approach is correct in my opinion on your work too, ... where do you see differences between your 2 above German warship tracks and my 2005 tracks of them ?

This is of course not the right thread to talk about this, ... but since my DS battle map has been called in, ... I respond here in like you did, ... while I think it does make sense to merge/move this discussion on this thread :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=82075#p82075

where we have been interrupted while doing a good analysis of the bearings among the 4 main warships ... and about the photos of the battle correlation after the Bismarck PG film that we did correlate very well to the Prinz Eugen track, ... moving after the Bismarck second turn event you are showing too on your above map.

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 )

Locked