PoW shell splash

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:49 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Have the 4 facts now been demoted to mere evidences?"
Have the 4 points (I can't care less how anyone prefers to call them) been answered in any way ? No, they have not.


1) They are isolated splashes (not 3 to 5 shells salvos fired every 30 seconds) in a 2+ minutes sequence (where are the PoW splashes of her 4 to 5 salvos (straddling and hitting BS) in the PG film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPmkOtSveXY) if these two are from Hood ?),

2) It's obviously impossible that the splashes are from Hood after 06:01 (or even before according to another "theory"),

3) Bismarck is on a clearly steady westerly course (impossible before 6:00 due to range closure rate) until almost the end of the film (see her aft gun barrels and fore turrets shape showing her firing well aft of her beam) at the time of the splashes (download/file.php?id=3251) and

4) the first PG turn to starboard (around 06:04 on her battlemap http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... tlemap.gif) is well visible analyzing the start of the film (see an easy explanation here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=435#p82759): at that time only local control was active on PoW and Hood had already gone since a while.

Any answer, at least to one single point, instead of mentioning second hands accounts and captions ?

Not yet ? Then, please, accept the fact that the above 4 points demonstrate, without any possible doubt, that the splashes are from PoW 14" shells fired under local control.


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)

bracer
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:54 pm

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by bracer » Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:18 pm

Mr. Jurens, Mr. Virtuani and Mr. Wadinga, thank you for the answers!

Kind regards,
Daniel
Battleship Command: Scharnhorst - A work in progress, indie, naval warfare simulator.
https://www.patreon.com/battleshipcommand

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:21 am

Hello everybody,

as promised in a (very unfortunately...) "locked" thread.... (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=30#p84686), as soon as I have found some time to read throught the new publication "Battleship Bismarck - A Design and Operational History", I have found other interesting "contradictions"/"errors" related to the analysis of the shell splashes that we see in the PG film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPmkOtSveXY please see minute 5:55-6-20) and in the discussed photo 1 (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fd/24/6f ... a4f0a3.jpg) and photo 2 (download/file.php?id=3251).

I'm thus re-opening this interesting thread about the PoW local salvos splashes, hoping we can finally all get to the only logical conclusion about the "source" of the splashes (being the result of the PoW local controlled salvos fall of shells)....



At pag.227 and 228 of the mentioned new book there are photos of the battle, all of them unfortunately incorrectly/contradictorily captioned, including the very same splashes of photo 1) and 2) above.

Photo 1 is correctly captioned at pag.228 as being a splash from PoW BUT it is wrongly (and contradictorily vs pag.211 map) timed at 05:56-05:59 (opening phase of the battle ?) when it is clearly after 06:04 (see here for a full demonstration viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526&start=45#p82888), despite any theoretical consideration about the actual distance of the shell splashes from BS and PG (as someone was trying to use here in this thread to support the theory of shells aimed at PG: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526&p=82878&hilit= ... ree#p82875 and viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526&p=82878&hilit= ... ree#p82878).

Photo 2 , showing a shell falling some seconds after the first one in the film, is captioned at pag.227 in a wrong way, "reporting" the caption of the Bundesarchiv (the one still trusted by a certain "fellow contributor" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526&start=30#p82880), despite any demonstration provided to show him the impossibility of his theory) attributing it to... the Hood (!)... already sunk when the film was turned....but, within the same caption at pag.227, saying that the turrets were turned aft... (that is clearly impossible before 6:03 anyway as per their "original" battlemap published at pag.211: another contradiction).

This fully confirms what Mr.RobertsonN has (very kindly) written about this new book (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&p=84389&hilit= ... yle#p84389):
"The authors writing style is such that there is considerable repetition and even contradiction."


I guess the authors have had severe problems understanding the logic, the sequence and the timing of the photos related to the battlemap provided (and explained at length) by Antonio Bonomi from 2005 (being the very base of his work to reconstruct Bismarck track based on photographic evidences, a track fully "embraced" by the authors....), as demonstrated also by the wrong caption timing of the last photo published at pag.228 (the famous flash effect photo) at 06:04, when the photo could not be taken before PG passed on the starboard side of BS at around 6:08, also according to "their" own battlemap.
At least, in this case, it's not interpreted as Bismarck firing at Hood....

bismarck_15.jpg
bismarck_15.jpg (29.38 KiB) Viewed 212 times

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)

Post Reply