Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by wadinga » Mon May 27, 2019 8:20 pm

Hello Alecsandros,

I am most concerned to hear that that being involved in this debate has put such an emotional strain on you. Please do no take it so seriously and be of good cheer. Your contributions have been most valid, and all the more interesting for those occasions when you questioned not just one, but both sides.

I hope your health and personal circumstances improve. Look on the bright side:
will come to a peacefull conclusion some years from now on, when the publishings of Antonio and Alberto will start being printed.
your name won't be on the dustjacket! :wink:


All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon May 27, 2019 8:54 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "your name won't be on the dustjacket! "
...while Mr.Wadinga's name will be mentioned in an appendix, as a living and shining example of a certain attitude vs this battle reconstruction...

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: 643
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon May 27, 2019 10:16 pm

@Alecsandros:

As moderator, and participant, my best wishes for the future, and our hopes that you may be able to continue to participate in the future. Your postings were valuable, and will be missed.

Bill Jurens

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Byron Angel » Tue May 28, 2019 2:54 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 7:56 pm
Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "Can any evidence be put forward to support this allegation?"
Can any other evidence whatsoever be put forward supporting that the hit n.2 was a 15" shell ? Therefore the "allegation" is the only logic explanation....

Bye, Alberto

The above response does not relate to the actual question. The question asked what evidence can be presented to support the allegation that other British authorities refrained from contradicting Captain Leach's statement/report regarding the nature of said hit.

Please re-read the relevant post.

B

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Byron Angel » Tue May 28, 2019 3:02 am

For your convenience, herewith is the relevant post in question -


Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941
by Byron Angel » Mon May 27, 2019 6:52 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Sun May 26, 2019 7:33 pm
"No, they were just not willing to contradict the statement written by Leach in his narrative."

- - -
Can any evidence be put forward to support this allegation? If not, it must be consigned to the realm of conjecture.
Yet again ..... theories and opinions do not equal facts.

B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue May 28, 2019 7:06 am

Hello everybody,

I'm very sorry that Mr.Angel has not understood that my answer was fully related to his question (while, lightly, he has never answered to my question....viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=195#p83771) .
I will try anyway to explain him:

The damage report written by the dockyard personnel found no evidence at all for a 15" shell. They clearly said that the angle of descent, the bearing (that allowed the shell to enter the opening in the HALA directors support), the damages found in the support itself and mostly the fact that the shell ricocheted over the thin roof of the charthouse point to a 8" (if it was not for the bearing, I would personally have suspected it was a Bismarck 6" instead...) download/file.php?id=3526 . These are written "facts".


Why the dockyard retained the "story" of the 15" as a "possibility" ?
They had found nothing to support it, but it had been already written by Capt.Leach in his narrative (surely in good faith, as the hit happened almost together with the CP hit). It had also become part of the official report (Tovey's despatches) of the action and no dockyard "expert" lightly contradicts what has been declared by RN high officers.

Leach_hit_n2.jpg
Leach_hit_n2.jpg (12.92 KiB) Viewed 535 times

This is the only logic explanation of the origin of the 15" shell possibility: in case Mr.Angel has found an evidence whatsoever pointing to a AP 15" (explaining how such a shell could ricochet on a light plate of non armor grade steel, as per his "theory", not a "fact"), he is welcome to present it here... Else the explanation is valid and the hit was clearly from a light shell.


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)

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by northcape » Tue May 28, 2019 2:29 pm

Byron Angel wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 3:02 am

Can any evidence be put forward to support this allegation? If not, it must be consigned to the realm of conjecture.
Yet again ..... theories and opinions do not equal facts.

B
Byron, I hear your frustration. I've been there before. As mentioned, my solution was to simply stop replying to this endless repetition of the same opinions and theories over and over, as clearly there is no progress in understanding the simple discrepancy between assumptions and facts (even if it is in front of them). I doubt the meaninigfulness of providing a stage and audience for this type of behaviour by entering an exchange on any level.

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by northcape » Tue May 28, 2019 2:30 pm

@ Alecsandros:

Get well, and don't take the internet/posting life too seriously. Hope to read from you again!

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue May 28, 2019 2:35 pm

Hello everybody,
"I hear your frustration. I've been there before. As mentioned, my solution was to simply stop replying to this endless repetition of the same opinions and theories over and over"
Frustration is only mine here. My "solution" would be to answer my points (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&p=83812#p83807), not to give advices (that are not requested and not welcome...) just to support one another when without arguments (possibly this is the kind of "frustration" mentioned above...)

If anyone has an evidence pointing to a 15" shell for hit n.2 against the ones identified by the damage report in favor of a 8" download/file.php?id=3526, he is free to present it, if not (and there is not at all, except Leach's honest but wrong evaluation (adopted by Tovey) download/file.php?id=3527) a nice silence would be much preferable to a (provoking) post void of any factual content.


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: 643
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue May 28, 2019 6:17 pm

My own view would be to suggest that the evidence regarding a 15" vs an 8" hit is incomplete and at least in part contradictory, leaving the actual situation somewhat indeterminate.

My observations have been that the determination of the angle of fall of a given projectile is often impossible to derive with any precision via examination of post-action evaluations, and that attempts to determine the subsequent path and performance of a given projectile after impact are also highly problematical.

I attempted, at length, to link entrance and exit holes, etc. aboard Bismarck without any significant success at all. Except on the proving ground, the projectile rarely behaves in anything closely resembling the way one expects it to.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue May 28, 2019 7:39 pm

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "...leaving the actual situation somewhat indeterminate. "
Why I'm not surprised to hear again about "indeterminateness" from our moderator ?

Why not answering the damage report clear evidence for a 8" in addition to angle of fall instead (download/file.php?id=3526) ?
1) Bearing (that allowed the shell to enter the "hole" in the HALA support before impacting the roof of the charthouse)
2) 15" AP capped shell "very" unlikely to ricochet on a thin, non-armor grade plate.
3) Overall damages considered by the dockyard not compatible with a 15" shell.

Why not mentioning a single evidence pointing to a 15", except Leach wrong evaluation (download/file.php?id=3527) ?


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: 1906
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by wadinga » Wed May 29, 2019 11:49 am

Fellow Contributors,

It has been observed that
leaving the actual situation somewhat indeterminate
is unsatisfying for one contributor. That is because whereas he operates in a universe where reality can be "set aside" in order to satisfy the requirements of a predetermined circumstances based on another's "intuition".

The evidence of the angle of entry and exit holes relative to vessel centreline and horizontal must therefore be ignored or re-interpreted to suit this invented scenario.

Therefore it is alleged that the violent course changes seen and recorded by witnesses both aboard PoW and on the German side did not happen because they are incompatible with this scenario, but at the same time it is suggested there was extreme heeling instead, without acknowledging this makes his comments on angle of fall irrelevant.
and no dockyard "expert" lightly contradicts what has been declared by RN high officers.
Once again the predetermination of Conspiracy and Cover-up is exposed. With no actual evidence, ie shell fragments, measurable holes etc, the dockyard report neatly straddles the fence switching probable and possible.

This however is a very interesting observation:
Except on the proving ground, the projectile rarely behaves in anything closely resembling the way one expects it to.
Confirming what I had always suspected.

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed May 29, 2019 12:29 pm

Hello everybody,

Q.E.D.
no arguments against raised points, just "indetermination" theory and false provoking statements (no evidence has been ignored or re-interpreted in our reconstruction to suit it: this is what deniers at any cost are trying to do to suit their crusader's agenda, ignoring written statements in their own archives...).

Coming to facts and leaving "principles", of course, no supporting technical evidence for a 15" shell as being responsible of the hit n.2.... (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&p=83812#p83807)


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)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Byron Angel » Wed May 29, 2019 3:56 pm

northcape wrote:
Tue May 28, 2019 2:29 pm
Byron, I hear your frustration. I've been there before. As mentioned, my solution was to simply stop replying to this endless repetition of the same opinions and theories over and over, as clearly there is no progress in understanding the simple discrepancy between assumptions and facts (even if it is in front of them). I doubt the meaninigfulness of providing a stage and audience for this type of behaviour by entering an exchange on any level.

Hi Northcape,
True words, without question. It is indeed a tiresome (and perhaps ultimately futile) exercise. The one redeeming feature, however, has been to highlight for other visitors to this forum the reaction of my correspondent when challenged to offer evidence in support of something represented as a "fact".

So far, of course, my simple question still awaits a cogent response.

B

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by alecsandros » Wed May 29, 2019 4:15 pm

Byron Angel wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 3:56 pm

So far, of course, my simple question still awaits a cogent response.

B
Dear Byron,
as an opinion , as uninformed as it might seem or be, my suggestion is to try to create a less aggravating dialogue, with less explicit demands.
I know that the solidity of a house rests on the solidity of it's foundation, BUT , in history, in general, there is always wiggle room and space for the unforeseen/unknown at the time of the writting. See what British contemporary (1941) accounts write about the Bismarck, and compare it to her actual characteristics, and you'll find alot of different data sets. Along the axis of time, other accounts, or books, appeared, concerning the battleship Bismarck, all of which are hard to consider, today, as being definitive (see von Mullencheim's account...). History changes with passing time, as more documents come to light...

If it helps in any way, my opinion is that a more general (but not too general) approach would work better, and at the very least move the type of debate from "why do you say that/ you don't know anything / show me proof of..." to a more collegial "what is your summary of the events that happened during timeframe.... to .... " / "what sequence of events best matches this phenomenon" / "what are the boundaries of the phenomenons that we are debating".

Every participant could bring his / her own version of the events, write it down, and publish it here. Finer details could and should be discussed in private, until more competent knowledge/ broader opinions are necessary.

My point of view...

Post Reply