That 05:21 turn

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: That 05:21 turn

Post by dunmunro » Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:27 pm

The above map's notation of 0521 or 0527 seems, on balance, to more resemble a 7 than a 1, given the example of another uncrossed 7 on the same map.

What is the source BTW?

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: That 05:21 turn

Post by Byron Angel » Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:58 am

Lacking those reserved document scans of greatly superior definition, we are obliged to work with what we have.


Senior Member
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: That 05:21 turn

Post by northcape » Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:05 am

To me - as german reader and writer - it is a 7 without any doubt.

But that is not the point. Given the fact that it is (rigthfully) deemed as unclear or not decided, everyone who is seriously interested in a historic reconstruction must of course consider his/her scenario as one out of many other possibilities if either 5.27 or 5:21 is taken as a starting point. This is again one out of so many occasions where the ambiguity of the input data tell us that any reconstruction can only be an educated guess, and of course not "the truth" or not even "close to the truth". In other words, just another kind reminder on how futile all these reconstruction attempts with their absurd level of details are.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3438
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: That 05:21 turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:31 am

Hello everybody,
northcape wrote: "that is not the point"
Exactly, that is not the point. If someone prefers to invent 1) that the only 7 resembling (but still not identical) a 1 in the whole map is the only one to be considered (discarding the other one, very very different) , 2) that the competent German reader and writer who annotated the PG KTB and the km15543 was wrong when reading 1 instead of 7, 3) that everybody lightly accepted this error (including the ones who sailed with PG like Brinkmann) when reviewing the documents, he is perfectly free to do that.

The "DoD" (all the cross-bearings taken from 5:35 till 5:41 from the different ships involved) will not change if Germans started the turn at 5:27 (instead of 5:21, as accepted by everyone except here) because at 5:40 all ships are anyway correctly positioned by their cross-bearings at certain distances that are very inconvenient for Ellis and Wake-Walker and that prove that Pinchin's Plot was produced with the intent to enlarge the battlefield to justify the two heavy cruiser for their passive attitude during the battle. This is the point.
Antonio reconstruction, using 5:21, is matching also all info available before this timing, I wait to see any work matching the info and using 5:27....

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