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: 3566
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:00 pm

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "The accuracy of this statement depends a great deal upon how much credence one wishes to place in Mullenheim-Rechberg's account"
Not only and not as the primary source. It depends on the precise timings ("on the spot") coming from Hunter-Terry (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82430&hilit=lutjens#p82430) about the boat deck hit (minute 5:57) + Jasper GAR (http://www.kbismarck.com/archives/pg-ktb.zip pag.39) describing the opening salvos of PG started at minute 5:55 (with flight times + spotting delays etc etc), that fix the boat deck hit at 5:57:30, not before.
The first (possible, not confirmed) hit from Bismarck (in Tedd Briggs (confused) witness http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... htm#Briggs) on the spotting top of Hood is described as happening just before the fatal hit and quite some time after the fire has started, after someone went to look out at the fire, after the admiral has decided not to extinguish the fire, etc.
Surely after 5:58, I would say after 5:59, at least based on his description of the events.


Regarding hitting distances:
Bismarck opened fire at 20800 meters (Lutjens message viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82430&hilit=lutjens#p82430). At 5:58 the distance of Bismack from PoW was around 18000 yards (see PoW salvo plot), at 5:59 it was around 17100 yards. Hood was slightly closer to Bismarck than PoW...

Therefore PoW hit BS 0.5 or 1 minute before (after open fire) and from around 4000 yards more (21450) than BS possibly hit Hood.


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: 1965
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:45 am

Fellow contributors,
40 is simply 8*5 (a bit too perfect to be shells without a single malfunction)... Anyway they don't match with the subsequent shooting
Answer to what I have written, don't run away without answering and proposing again the same interpretation, if you can.
Now evidence, not interpretation, from eye witnesses is rejected because it is "too perfect". Not too perfect for Admiral Santarini who is perfectly able to reconcile 40 shells expenditure against Hood with the overall total of 93. The Baron is a real expert witness describing what happened, not something "made up" (Answer to what I have written) to conveniently suit a favoured speculation.
based on evidences, not conveniences.
The Baron describes the champagne toasting of Schneider's success in Bismarck's wardroom, surely where the 40 shells were discussed at length and which obviously triumphantly stuck in his mind.
Bill Jurens wrote: "I would be very interested in knowing the precise methods by which the timing was done."
This is available on the recorded threads and has not changed over the years despite the numerous gross errors and glaring mistakes pointed out by a rotating list of contributors, many of whom have signed off in frustration at the intransigence of the perpetrators. One of those contributors was the only adherent they ever gained, but who could not reconcile the evidence of his own eyes looking at firing rate on the film (whatever the frame rate) with the timing he was required to accept because it had been "proved" and there were no other possibilities.

As to precise method, it is based entirely "on conveniences, not evidence" and created specifically to suit the desired revisionist scenario. That it is incredibly detailed and carefully designed to be self supporting is true, but then so are the plotlines of Game of Thrones and they didn't really happen either. Usually writers of fantasy, when challenged over gaping plot holes, don't generally resort to insults and demand detractors write an alternative, but genially accept "it's only a work of fiction".

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3566
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:54 am

Hello everybody,

I don't comment here on the "PG film timing" pure provocations written in the above post by "Wadinga", who, trying to counter this timing, had even shamelessly supported (against any evidence) a turn away of Bismarck before Hood demise ... :lol:
He has run away from the right thread, where this timing was being discussed, because unable to counter Antonio's arguments (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424), as he is running away now from the discussion about the duration of Bismarck fire action (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=345#p82652 , 3rd point)... :kaput:
However, he is still here, allowed to provoke and to mock, as per his bad habit.
he wrote: "created specifically to suit the desired revisionist scenario"
Intentionally false. It has been "created" in 2005 by Antonio, when no discussion was still being done on Court Martial and the timidity of some RN officers... At that time the "deniers at any cost" (as he insist to use the term "revisionists") were quite happy with the method and the overall reconstruction, because it was not "offending" yet their sacred cow.



Wadinga wrote: "Not too perfect for Admiral Santarini who is perfectly able to reconcile 40 shells expenditure against Hood with the overall total of 93"
Santarini never did such a detailed "reconciliation" work. Show where (page number, please). :negative:

Mr.Wadinga should try to "reconcile" the 40 shells expended against Hood before 6:00 (5 minutes) + the shells expended against PoW before her turn away before 6:03 (3 minutes) + the shells expended against PoW after 6:03 in 6 minutes (considering we see at least 10 semi-salvos (40 shots) fired after that time in the film and in the photos)...
We have done this work, he has never even tried, but arrogantly insists to speak here...

Good Luck !


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:51 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)

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

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by HMSVF » Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:50 pm

offending" yet their sacred cow.



I've never really understood this turn of phrase. Denmark Straight was a tactical defeat,I don't think that I've ever read that anybody has said different.

The divergence of opinion appears to be in regards to Leach's actions. Now having read the various debates over the years on here and on the HMS Hood forum (before it sadly disappeared) the alternative view is somewhat subjective and a matter of opinion. I suppose a lot depends on a persons starting point and the basis of their thesis. If you start with the premise that "X" happens then the evidences available have to be made to fit - where IMHO none of the available evidences make a clean fit, there are always odd shaped pieces, there are always pieces that are at odds with the rest of bigger picture.

Unfortunately war is like that, its human conflict. Witness testimony can be notoriously unreliable, charts,forms and logs are filled in by humans and therefore can be in error. Whilst it would be nice to have a purely statistical, clean,accurate account of Denmark Strait the truth of the matter is that this was a pre digital, analogue point of history which relied on less than perfect inputs and computations.

If we had the ability to time travel and place a GPS on each of the 6 vessels involved I'm pretty sure that what GPS recorded and what the 1941 crews documented would differ. The basis would be there for sure, but I would imagine that the actual timings would be different (understandably) as would the more intricate manoeuvres. The idea that a "perfect' reconstruction can achieved is flawed, a best guess is much more likely (acknowledging that it is a guess) due to the limitations of the available evidence, we only have survivors accounts from Hood & Bismarck and only 1 as far as I know who was actually on the bridge of one of these 2 vessels in Briggs. Thats a big gap, and the gap widens in the fact the only charts that survive are POW's and PE's

Again (to me) it depends on what your starting point is. If you start off thinking that something its a sacred cow, you will search for all the evidences that are available to prove it's a sacred cow.

When it might just be a holy goat.


Best wishes HMSVF

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3566
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:57 pm

Hello everybody,
HMSVF wrote: "I've never really understood this turn of phrase"
Sacred cow = (debatable) honor of (timid) RN officers involved (Leach, Wake-Walker and Ellis) + RN high officers cover-up of what happened (from Tovey false statements in his report to Pound and Churchill final acceptance of an incorrect story) + final decorations for "militarily poor" officers from His Majesty + embellishment of several other aspects, including this very topic (the "story" of the "green" PoW, with a poor gunnery performance).

The precise (within due tolerances) reconstruction done by Antonio in 2005 has become only now annoying, because it has unveiled all the above.


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: 667
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:27 pm

Although the debate remains healthy, I seem to be noticing a gradual return towards an increasingly combative tone again.

Spirited debate is desirable, and even useful even though -- as we all know -- the process is often both frustrating and perhaps ultimately futile. In any case, I'd offer just a quick word of caution to contributors to be careful not to fuel the fires of 'escalation by retaliation'. We don't want to return to the previously experienced situation, where portions of the forum became, more or less, a completely pointless yelling match...

As an aside, regarding the film issues, might someone clarify if anyone has actually located and/or examined the actual physical film itself? This would, if nothing else, enable the creation of a proper frame-numbering sequence, etc. I may be wrong, but I don't think this has ever been specifically dealt with here.

When I did my series of papers on the explosion of U.S.S. Arizona, frame-by-frame examination was critical both in revealing details otherwise lost in reproduction and in establishing at least fairly precise timing which permitted the extraction of more quantitative data revolving around the propagation of the explosive burn. It also revealed how misleading and incomplete video reproductions were, or at least could be.

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 30, 2019 6:55 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens ( as moderator ),

you wrote :
Although the debate remains healthy, I seem to be noticing a gradual return towards an increasingly combative tone again.
I am really curious to see how long and until which point someone [redaction by moderator Jurens] will be allowed to write provocations and offenses to someone else work in this forum, ... free of any charge, ... just because he does not like to accept what the documents are now clearly showing about those arguments.

It is not the first time that I am pointing out this fact, ... nothing happened, ... and here we are again.

Alberto responded in an educated way, ... and I thank him for that.

If the tone will remain the one I have read above, ... the intentional provocations will receive the response they deserve.

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:56 pm

Fellow Contributors,

It has been suggested that Admiral Santarini's exhaustive statistical analysis is based on false understanding. Since there is no detail about Bismarck's firing recorded anywhere, his hypotheses are at least as valid as any others, and since he respects the Baron's information, probably much better.

On page 74 and 75 in tables 7 & 8 he advances two hypotheses, one exactly supporting the Baron as eye witness, and one assuming, not unreasonably that those in Bismarck did not know instantaneously after the explosion that Hood was doomed and that therefore they were free to divert their firepower instantaneously to PoW.

Thus 40 shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal fired in 5 minutes (Hypothesis B) or that two more semi-salvoes might be fired at Hood before it was clear a change of target was justified, thus 48 shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal fired in 6 minutes (Hypothesis A). Since Hood had slowed dramatically, causing a clear miss and retrospectively it is clear that 40 shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal had finished her, the Baron could repeat this with confidence whichever actually occurred.

Admiral Santarini then assumes having established this rate of 8 shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal per minute, on pages 76 & 77 Tables 9 & 10 he extends this to consider shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal fired against PoW. Since the target started extreme manoeuvring and Bismarck too, he considers this rate maintained into 06:06 being another 40 shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal fired. Since Bismarck then makes emergency turns to starboard and then back to port, this period only another 5 shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal until stopping firing at 06:09 as Hypothesis A.

Hypothesis A total shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal =93
Hypothesis B total shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal =93

These hypotheses respect the Baron's evidence and avoid the illogical suggestion that rapid firing by Bismarck seen in the film happened at a time when both she and her target were turning at maximum rates and such firing would be a waste of ammunition. It also avoids the tendentious suggestion lying at the heart of the so-called reconstruction that PoW's compass platform was hit 50 seconds after Hood blew up, including the time of flight of the shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal.
The precise (within due tolerances) reconstruction done by Antonio in 2005 has become only now annoying, because it has unveiled all the above.
The gross errors and mistakes in even the earliest reimagining of 2005 were identified at the time, but only when, instead of admitting the mistakes and correcting them, a series of further errors and baseless assertions were made in creating the relative positions of other vessels did things become at all "annoying". Later, the alleging of widespread falsification of records, lying under oath and a cover up of enormous proportions without any supporting evidence, made it clear a giant calumny was being perpetrated, motive to be determined.

[Material deleted by moderator Jurens]

All the best

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

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:11 pm

In attempts to de-escalate discussions and maintain a considerate tone I have again deleted potentially inflammatory commentary in two previous posts.

It would help if participants would simply refrain from posting this sort of commentary in the first place, and confine themselves to the technical and historical aspects of the issues at hand.

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 30, 2019 8:22 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

you wrote :
The gross errors and mistakes in even the earliest reimagining of 2005 were identified at the time, but only when, instead of admitting the mistakes and correcting them, a series of further errors and baseless assertions were made in creating the relative positions of other vessels did things become at all "annoying". Later, the alleging of widespread falsification of records, lying under oath and a cover up of enormous proportions without any supporting evidence, made it clear a giant calumny was being perpetrated, motive to be determined.
Since your frustration of being totally unable to counter any part of the work I have done with facts or an alternative way to read the events or to calculate distances and bearings among the warships on the DS battlefield [commentary deleted by moderator Jurens] I am asking you to list the errors you are referring to above and explain us all here in why they are errors.

[Your methodology is insufficient to... counter a properly researched work supported by the official available documents.

Please explain us where you see errors and what is the correct way to read those errors according to your knowledge and competence.

[Comments deleted by moderator Jurens]


Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:50 pm

Mr. Bonomi:

You are skating on thin ice here. I will not take the time to edit and redact your commentary (or anyone else's for that matter) on a routine basis.

Please make some effort to phrase your comments in less-inflammatory and confrontational language. Your points seem to be:

a) Other commentators seem to be unable (or unwilling) to create alternative scenarios to my reconstruction(s).

and

b) You would like to receive detailed information on the errors other commentators have seen in my reconstruction(s).

Fair enough. Having made those points, if I have indeed summarized them correctly, no further elaboration is required. The rest is noise...

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3566
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:05 pm

Hello everybody,

possibly Mr.Wadinga has not understood that what I asked to him (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82670#p82661) was not a mere copy/paste of Adm.Santarini hypothesis: I want his homework done, with his own analysis of Bismarck firing.
Wadinga wrote: "Admiral Santarini then assumes having established this rate of 8 shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal per minute, on pages 76 & 77 Tables 9 & 10 he extends this to consider shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal fired against PoW. Since the target started extreme manoeuvring and Bismarck too, he considers this rate maintained into 06:06 being another 40 shells/rounds/projectiles/chunks of metal fired"
A pity that we have photos showing at least 5 (semi ?)-salvos (minimum 20 shots) fired by Bismarck after 6:06. Therefore Adm.Santarini is wrong (he never dig into the photos as Antonio has done, producing the best and more accurate reconstruction of the battle ever. The proof of what I say is that he even used a proven wrong battlemap for Bismarck track in his book. As a consequence, he was unable to reconstruct Bismarck firing).
Btw, I have done a simulation in the "annoying table" using Santarini 80 shells for Bismarck in 11 minutes (5:55-6:06) and still I get effective # shells fired by PoW per minute higher than Bismarck's... :lol:

I have never said however that all Adm.Santarini analysis is perfect: I say he realized (first on earth :clap: ) that PoW shooting was excellent.
His analysis of Bismarck fire is wrong, but his conclusion about British attitude when refusing to admit how PoW fired well is simply PERFECT: Mr.Wadinga & friends have still to digest it:

download/file.php?id=3420




@Bill Jurens:
"The rest is noise..."
respectfully, the true disturbing noises here are Mr.Wadinga's continuous provocations when short of arguments (see: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=360#p82660): I do hope you are able, as moderator, to see them...


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: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:12 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens ( as moderator ),

I just asked you to prevent intentional provocations and personal insults from a forum member to another forum member by this forum moderator.

If there will be no intentional personal provocations, ... there will be no reactions.

@ Jose' Rico,

is all this situation ok in your personal opinion being the webmsater ?

I am just asking you this very simple question.

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:43 pm

In deference to the tone of his most recent post, I have, with considerable regret, taken the unusual step of banning Mr. Bonomi from participation in this board for a 24 hour period. This is about the lightest practical penalty I can impose, and hope that this will help to restore at least a little bit of order to the forum. I have left the post up so that other readers can see its contents. Normally, I would have posted a formal 'warning' message first, but I consider that my previous reference to 'skating on thin ice' effectively served as a substitute.

I am sure that some members feel redactions and deletions have been unfairly imposed. They may be right. I do the best I can to keep the discussion as respectful as possible. Unfortunately, there are situations where members begin a 'flame war' which gets wholly out-of-control in a very short period, often between my moderating visits. In those cases, although I try to go back and evaluate everything previously written, it is often difficult and time-consuming to read pages of provocative -- and in some cases frankly rather childish comments -- and decide exactly who has gone 'over the line' and who has not, and in what particular sequence.

Mr. Bonomi is certainly welcome to return to the forum roughly 24 hours from now. As I understand it, the ban will be ended automatically. In that regard, If he still cannot get back on, and he still wishes to do so, he should contact me via e-mail so that I can make the necessary corrections, as the system may not as yet be working perfectly.

Participants should note that although Mr. Bonomi has, in effect, been 'singled-out' for this particular treatment, he is certainly not alone in making provocative comments; his posting just happened to be the most recent and, in my opinion, the most egregious.

Bill Jurens.

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:54 am

Mr. Bonomi wrote:

"I just asked you to prevent intentional provocations and personal insults from a forum member to another forum member by this forum moderator. If there will be no intentional personal provocations, ... there will be no reactions."

His point is well taken. There should be no intentional provocations from either side, but -- as he noted, they do occur. In these circumstances, the original comment may be seen as offensive, but would have to meet two criteria simultaneously, viz.:

a) It would have to be provocative

and

b) The provocation must be intentional, i.e. not accidental.

in order for severe action to be appropriate.

In that regard, in the future, it would be better if one detects what they feel to be an intentional provocation, that instead of replying immeidately in anger directly to the perceived aggressor, they simply put the question to myself. I can look at the post in question, delete the offensive material -- if that has not been done already -- and, provided criteria a and b above are both satisfied, suitably sanction the poster. In other words, don't tackle the aggressor directly, simply call a policeman.

But doing this will require some patience, i.e. instead of simply 'yelling back' and escalating the situation, the offended party might have to wait a few hours -- perhaps even longer -- until a more formal action was taken.

"If there will be no intentional personal provocations, ... there will be no reactions." is a reasonable outlook. As before, the keys are to desist if possible from making offensive comments in the first place, and to resist the tendency to 'strike back' immediately and start an escalation once a provocation is made. In situations where these rules are not followed, the blame lies on both sides, first to the person making the allegedly offensive comment, and second to the person who reacts to the comment in an even more offensive manner. They are BOTH to blame.

If provocation stems from only one or two individuals, and retaliations are not forthcoming, then it will be quite easy to sort out who the real culprits are.

I feel like a cop at a street riot. With everybody yelling and screaming and throwing rocks, in order to regain order, my best bet is often to start by simply arresting the demonstrators standing closest to me. That doesn't mean that the person being arrested was a major instigator, or even doing anything particularly wrong at that particular instant; he might have picked up the rock just to see what what was written on it. That, in this case, is very much what happened to Mr. Bonomi.

Bill Jurens.

Locked