PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:23 pm

My perception is that each side in these discussions has contributed a fair share of personal and ad-hominem attacks on the other. If participants could only refrain from inserting -- apparently often as an afterthought -- some sort of personal jab at the end of a given contribution, we would all make further and faster progress, if any progress can be made at all.

In that regard, let us take it as read that, at least essentially, one side feels that British evidence has been contrived in order to cover up tactical and/or personal incompetence, and that the other side feels that this particular viewpoint is invalid. There is no need for either side to continue to point out, ad nauseum, that the other side has a personal agenda. We know that already. You cannot make your own light brighter by blowing out someone else's candle. If it's a bad candle, it will go out by itself.

I think we would make more progress if we confined ourselves to comments concerning the MERITS of a given argument, rather than the real or imagined) motivation which might be behind it. As in a courtroom, useful discussion is usually confined -- by judgmental fiat -- to addressing the relative quality of the evidence being presented, not the credibility or motivation of the opposing lawyer(s). Just tell us why you think the opposition's evidence is wrong or, better yet, why you think your particular evidence is better. We already know why the opposition is presenting it.

As moderator, the best I can do is declare -- as I have often done -- that a particular comment is 'out of order'. I cannot strike inappropriate comments from the record, my only other option would be to lock down the thread entirely. That's often amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would be a lot easier for everyone if they took special pains not to insert inappropriate or potentially offensive comments in the first place.

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 » Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:33 pm

Hi Mr.Jurens,
I see your difficulty: may I suggest you to look at what Mr.Rico has done here and do the same to the very first post mocking or insulting ?
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8477&start=30#p82093
Thanks in advance.

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: 756
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:30 am

As I understand the situation, although Mr. Rico has the power to purge (or perhaps just edit) messages, I do not. I believe I only have the authority to lock threads.

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 » Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:15 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

what about this one :
The fabrication of evidence of non-existent accurate radar ranges by A&A is purely designed at this point to allow the generation of a further speculative "definitive and perfectly accurate map" of the action after 06:00, on some other thread, based on their intuitive interpretation of the vagaries of the Salvo Map, and thus "proving" their unfounded assertions of Cowardice, Conspiracy and Cover-Up.
Everything was OK ?

And what about this post by the same author, ... even worst.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=15#p82224

In particular :
Even Vic Dale in 2009, who was quite as prepared to fabricate evidence in support of fantasy allegations as A&A are today, quoted :
and
More fabricated allegations about cover-ups will follow until this dreadful theory is exposed to the rightful and universal derision it deserves, and its authors duly castigated, by being published internationally.
Everything was OK as well ???

I have not seen any moderator reaction to the above writings.

My post on the other thread is just an educated response to the above, ... where I have not seen your same immediate reaction.

Bye Antonio
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 756
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:50 pm

I do not believe that any postings along these lines are desirable, from either side of the debate. I try, I am sure some will feel sometimes without success, to be impartial, and recognize that criticism must, almost by definition, sometimes be perceived as offensive, and that discussion is, again almost by definition, often somewhat adversarial in nature.

What we do want to do, I think, is to direct argument and discussion not at any individual, but at the argument itself. Describing a position as ill-conceived is OK in my books but associating this with a given individual, i.e. expressing it in personal terms, or attributing it to malice or stupidity is not.

One should, if possible, assume the position that although the other side might be misguided, they are approaching the argument sincerely and honestly. If they are ill-informed, a statement of fact, or facts, should be enough to refute an opponents argument. Of course, no matter how firm the evidence one way or another, a minority -- usually a small one -- will remain unconvinced. Usually their lack of credibility is self-evident, i.e. it need not be pointed out specifically.

Some difficulties probably revolve around phrasing. Some individuals naturally express themselves in what others might see as an overly-aggressive or over-confident manner. Some of this is cultural. My background is Canadian. My partner has a middle-eastern background. It took me a long time to learn that when she was, in my view, yelling and screaming, she was within her cultural milieu, simply expressing a rather mildly-held opinion.

We really cannot undo the past, and it's probably not really productive to go back and reopen old wounds by revisiting past postings. What I hope we can do is try to refrain from insulting and/or aggravating other correspondents, either by accident or on purpose, in the future.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:27 pm

Hello All,

Since I have no interest in getting people or even contentious points of view banned from the Forum or even expunged, (I prefer them to remain as evidence for readers to make their own decisions about), here is an interesting point from McMullen's letter:
Then Mr. Murphy's report of one range from D. C. T. and my "estimation by card"; then Hood opening fire and we following as per drill in our "time sector" on a mean of two ranges. (One from a 15 foot range finder and one estimated).
This confirms that even though he was located in the DCT, McMullen was apparently unaware that the rangefinder operator, within two metres of him, had derived a range and sent it to the Transmitting Room, where Murphy was the central point of contact and informed the Gunnery Officer whether he was receiving reasonable range data.. He was imploring Murphy for information on range. Therefore it was Murphy who would know whether any radar ranges were incorporated. Of course it was Murphy who would send azimuth and deflection to the guns. McMullen's function was to make decisions on targeting and to intervene if he suspected decisions made by TS personnel who did have access to all the evidence before them, unlike him who had merely a pair of binoculars.

If all documentary evidence eg Paddon and The KG V report etc which contradicts a single contentious interpretation is dismissed out of hand, and assertions made of extensive cover-up:
Why he even avoided to mention the letter to Roskill in his correspondence (that I have got in full) during the review of "Pursuit" and later (there are letters between the two of them re. the Bismarck Operation until 1982), asking him why he had supported the false story of the "radar failures" ?
Such bias in rejecting clear evidence in favour of making unfair assertions about Roskill and Kennedy's honesty will undoubtedly result in a work based on such a biases being regarded with derision and its authors castigated. Ignoring the weight of evidence and asserting a "false story" is being told is in itself fabrication of evidence.

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 » Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:07 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: ""Ignoring the weight of evidence and asserting a "false story" is being told is in itself fabrication of evidence."
Supporting since ever a well proven "false official story" and ignoring now what has been plainly written by the PoW G.O. (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... letter.htm), preferring to trust the alleged account of his subordinate (not posting any source for it yet... :kaput: ) is being told in itself stubborn denial at any cost.

Please, explain why Roskill, who was sure the 284 was not working in his "War at Sea", did not react at all to McMullen's statement below (while he was very interested in discussing with him other, much less important, aspects present in his letter) ?
McMullen_PoW_Radar_Ranges.jpg
McMullen_PoW_Radar_Ranges.jpg (14.99 KiB) Viewed 903 times

I wonder how long this guy will be allowed to make such low accusations WITHOUT being stopped by a moderator that should be "super-partes"...



Bill Jurens wrote: "I do not believe that any postings along these lines are desirable, from either side of the debate..."
...but still you persist in calling by name only "Mr.Bonomi" and "Mr.Virtuani".
When will you finally show your "impartiality" by calling this harmful Mr.Wadinga by his "name" to ask him to stop this (see above) low kind of accusations ?

Again, please follow Mr.Rico example, who was able to stop an even worse forum member here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8477&start=30#p82093), and I'm sure, for the future, you will be able to play your role much better than you have done up to now, despite Mr.Wadinga preference to have all his unsupported nonsense preserved in the forum and despite your own (quite clear by now) personal opinions about the substance of the discussion.


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: 2084
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:39 am

Hello Alberto,

Please stop "diving" in front of the referee and rolling around on the ground in simulated agony in hopes of gaining a penalty. Frankly it's undignified.

The KG V report, Paddon's account, Roskill's account and others simply outweigh McMullen's confused memory of thirty years later. The weight of evidence for any unbiased person says he is wrong. Therefore on balance I "prefer to believe" all these accounts which agree rather than the one recollection of so long after. Just as Ellis' detailed multi page report, submitted in 1941 is far more reliable than his unedited, un-fact-checked unpublished recollection of thirty years later.
Please, explain why Roskill, who was sure the 284 was not working in his "War at Sea", did not react at all to McMullen's statement below
Because the minor error of memory McMullen made after 30 years in this specific matter was so trivial, insignificant and unimportant it was not worth mentioning. Roskill knew because of his specialism and the importance of checking actual performance under combat conditions at the time in 1941, that no radar results were available to be received by Murphy. Exactly as it says in the official KG V report, which you describe as a well proven "false Official story" when it is nothing of the sort .


and I'm sure, for the future, you will be able to play your role much better than you have done up to now,
Questioning the Referee's decisions is a "sending off" offence you know.

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:39 am

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

I understand about the many difficulties in your role and regarding the different way to express yourself being Canadian, English, Italian, German and so on.

I will also add to it the fact that some are native English speaking language and some are not, ... but I am not asking any credit or special treatment for it, ... it is just a fact.

In my opinion here the point is very easy, ... there was an hot debate that required a moderator to be named, ... you came onboard.

Everything went back to normal and the tone went down, ... up until somebody restarted the intentional personal provocation ( adding something I personally consider an insult ) when left with no arguments.

This is not acceptable here in and it will never be accepted, at least not by me.

In my personal opinion, that was the moment when you should have been directing your attention toward to cooling the guy down, ... not having done that restarted the old mood as you can see.

Who is this person is very clear to me, it is enough to read the post on this forum, and I have provided you also the link and the most offensive statements.

I have avoided to respond to this arrogant offensive person on the way he deserves, ... asking your intervention as moderator ( fact ), ... but I am not going to allow him to continue in this way free of charge.

If somebody does not like that we write about history here in with no sacred cows, ... he is better change forum.

Thanks for your help.

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 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 Feb 27, 2019 8:45 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote:"The KG V report, Paddon's account, Roskill's account and others simply outweigh McMullen's confused memory of thirty years later."
Once again Mr.Wadinga is unable to list a source for his alleged Murphy witness and the name of the officer of the PoW T.S. "disappeared in the mist" in his last post above...

Paddon was in the 281 receiving office NOT in the 284 (the one mentioned by McMullen as providing ranges) for which he had no info whatsoever.

KG V was not PoW.

Roskill inspected personally the radars once PoW was back and apparently stated that the 284 was "unable to provide ranges throughout the action" (how could he conclude this way is a mystery as we know that the 284 worked fine during the third engagement and an inspected radar cannot tell you the reason why it worked fine in the evening and it did not in the morning....but nobody has posted Roskill's original report here yet).

What is sure is that, after receiving McMullen letter (http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... letter.htm) Roskill "preferred" to discuss with him the scale of the screen (being 24000 yards (McMullen) or 28000 yards (Roskill), both were not 100% certain about the actual scale, however, and this is understandable 30 years later) but did not ask about the key statement below that the radar did provide ranges, totally disproving what he had written in his "War at Sea": a "detail" that cannot be forgot. WHY ?
McMullen_PoW_Radar_Ranges.jpg
McMullen_PoW_Radar_Ranges.jpg (14.99 KiB) Viewed 825 times


As I said already, nothing changes if anyone prefers to think that McMullen invented this part of the account ( :shock: ), as once the range was found "manually + optically", no big value could come from the 284 anymore, but please, stop forever listing the radar as an argument for the PoW poor readiness to combat: Hood had the same identical problem and we don't know whether Germans had an initial radar range or not.
This story is just part of the happy ending fairy-tale produced after the battle to justify Capt.Leach decision to disengage, as well as the poor PoW gunnery performance.




Regarding the "referee", the only one "diving" in front of him is Mr.Wadinga, who, being guilty (and for his own admission here in the forum to defend the honor of the RN officers, not to discuss history), tries to get his favor: from my side, I have said crystal clear (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=30#p82259) what is my opinion re. his way to play his role, that has allowed Mr.Wadinga to repeatedly commit a first "foul" (the last one: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=15#p82224) without admonishing him by name and allowing the "brawl in the field" to logically develop.


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: 1441
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:28 am

From No. 1427/H.F.01516
RDF1.jpg
RDF1.jpg (29.73 KiB) Viewed 813 times
From No. 1165/H.F. 1325
RDF2.jpg
RDF2.jpg (37.14 KiB) Viewed 813 times
Regards

Marc

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

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 Feb 27, 2019 11:24 am

Hello everybody,

therefore the Type 284 radar was perfectly working on board PoW and simply it was not able to get the initial open fire range (according to McMullen letter to Kennedy) or did not get any range during the first action (according to Roskill and Tovey's official report kindly posted above).
No further detail however, simply the only source of Tovey was logically the PoW GAR point B4 written by McMullen, that should be intended, based on the sequence of the accounted facts (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm), as failure of the radar to get initial range only, despite the interpretation given by Tovey, according to McMullen letter...).
Tovey Type 284.jpg
Tovey Type 284.jpg (17.97 KiB) Viewed 790 times

In no way this failure to get the initial range can be an argument for the alleged lack of readiness to combat of the PoW (as the experienced HMS Hood did not obtained nor passed any initial range to PoW as well, according to McMullen) and we don't know from any source whether even Germans obtained any open fire range, as Jasper does not mention any radar help in his Gunnery Report.



After the range was acquired however (starting manually with McMullen's cards and/or optically from the "B" turret or from the fore DCT rangefinder and "adjusting" with the 2 down ladders) at the 6th salvo (05:56), the radar could have been anyway of very limited relevance during the battle.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:32 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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:32 pm

Hello Alberto,
Once again Mr.Wadinga is unable to list a source for his alleged Murphy witness and the name of the officer of the PoW T.S. "disappeared in the mist" in his last post above...
Murphy's statement is quoted in Corelli Barnett's "Enemy the Enemy More Closely" from which your co-author Antonio Bonomi has quoted very extensively. His selective amnesia when monitoring this thread once again exposes you by failing to inform you of material he is very familiar with whilst allowing you to question its very existence. You must surely be fed up with being his "fall guy".

Furthermore, Barnett says this material comes from a letter in the Roskill folio 4/17 and I seem to recall that you...........oh yes here it is!
You go to Cambridge, you try to play the historian role finding the documents and you pay for the information, as I did (as well as Mr.Cag).
and
Please go to Cambridge and READ the all the relevant letters BEFORE you speak, exposing yourself in this pityful way, in your vain attempt to "protect" this way (only in your mind, thinking of a kind of sacred mission) the honor of these officers !
Then Kennedy is wrong (not a surprise....), again go to Cambridge and read the evidences BEFORE speaking. Be more careful, the evidences are there.
Hi Sean,
No it's not. You have the relevant text from 4 different letters.

I'm afraid you insist in your accusations to me. Therefore, in the absence of your public excuses, I will not post anymore ANY info. You go to Cambridge and you get the sources yourself.
You were very reticent about releasing information from the Roskill letters before which might not promote your baseless accusations. Now once again you too, seem to be suffering from selective amnesia.

I really think that merits a bazinga.

Bazinga!

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 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:44 pm

Hello everybody,

again low insults and accusations of "reticence and selective amnesia" from a guy (who evidently fells himself immune from any measure agianst him) that was not able to quote correctly what he parroted from a forum member and had hidden for years Roskill published references to the Court Martial and ADM 205/10, confirming the "regrettable aftermath") ... :lol:

Thanks for finally pointing to a source for Murphy statement (which is the date of this statement ? how was Murphy memory ? Has Murphy produced a report at the time of facts confirming what he says in the letter ?).
Apparently Mr.Wadinga has not yet gone to Cambridge, as suggested, but still prefers not to get primary sources.... He does not merit a "Bazinga" but a sound laugh for his pseudo-historical method...



Anyway, we apparently have Murphy saying once thing and McMullen another: who is right ? I don't know by now but it makes no real difference at all.


For sure, the Type 284 radar was perfectly working on board PoW. In no way this failure to get the initial range can be an argument for the alleged lack of readiness to combat of the PoW (as the experienced HMS Hood did not obtained nor passed any initial range to PoW as well, according to McMullen) and we don't know from any source whether even Germans obtained any open fire range, as Jasper does not mention any radar help in his Gunnery Report.
The story is just another attempt to embellish the situation and justify Leach's decision to disengage.



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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by dunmunro » Wed Feb 27, 2019 4:04 pm

Herr Nilsson wrote:
Wed Feb 27, 2019 9:28 am
From No. 1427/H.F.01516
RDF1.jpg
From No. 1165/H.F. 1325
RDF2.jpg
The fact that A&A will not simply admit that they're wrong about PoW's radar during the first engagement, even when faced with overwhelming evidence speaks volumes. I am reminded once again about the use of memoirs and fading memories to support numerous UFO myths.

Locked