Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3438
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 6:20 pm

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "So far, of course, my simple question still awaits a cogent response"
I don't think so.
I was hoping I had answered already (spending quite some quite polite words...viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=210#p83807) but apparently we do speak different languages, so no point in discussing further loosing time....

Instead, still my repeated very simple question still awaits a cogent answer: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=195#p83796, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=210#p83827, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=210#p83812, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=210#p83821.
I guess it's a bit difficult for anyone to provide a convenient answer...


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: 326
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by northcape » Wed May 29, 2019 7:17 pm

alecsandros wrote:
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...
Hi Alecsandros,

I see a more fundamental issue here, which is the inability of Mr. Virtuani to understand the fundamental difference between assumptions and facts. He has proven this inability at so many times and is continuing to do so, such that I feel for myself that it is futile to have any discussion. There is simply nothing to be gained,apart hostility, if rational and irrational arguments meet. If I ask "show me a proof (=fact)", and for the thousand's time I get an assumption as a reply, I conclude that there is no way forward.
For the other part, we have had the summaries of the theories also for a hundred times. The problem is not the theory or a specific opinion, but simply the circumstance that the theory is considered as fact. The procedure to do so is irrational/non-scientific (e.g. taking parts of the theory, for example the track reconstruction, to prove other parts of the theory). There is no point in discussing any coarse or fine details if this fundamental issue is not resolved.

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 7:38 pm

northcape wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 7:17 pm
The problem is not the theory or a specific opinion, but simply the circumstance that the theory is considered as fact. The procedure to do so is irrational/non-scientific (e.g. taking parts of the theory, for example the track reconstruction, to prove other parts of the theory). There is no point in discussing any coarse or fine details if this fundamental issue is not resolved.
It is more to this -
any debate should be made by equal parties. I.e. in debate circles, each side has a team/crew, of equal number. Say 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4.
When one side had 10 people and the other has 1, it is unbalanced and unfair. Very strong and capable men can debate like this, but it's not fair ...

After awhile , anybody gets bogged down in small arguments and small nuances and small pieces of info, while the bigger picture, or the critical arguments , get ignoered, washed out, discarded.

For a constructive debate here, you should create a team to support Alberto, with replies, with presence, with attention. He can't be on the forum 24/7, can he ? And naturally, when he gets back on the forum, being alone, he sees 20 replies from 5-7 men, all of them demanding attention and being , generally, negative in their tone and attitude. It's not fair, it's not balanced and it's not constructive.

What this forum shoudl have is a temporary division of teams. 5 on 5 or 6 on 6. Work in teams, work in turns. Team one posts today. Team two has 24 hours to respond. Team one further replies, etc.

PS: The scientific approach that you mention has been applied (in a way) by Antonio and later by Alberto, by using a statystical analysis of occurence of battle timings, based on 15 or 20 different wittnesses accounts (IIRC). This is burried somewhere in 2014, IIRC... A perfect model of the battle can't be produced based on the available evidence. I think that's obvious, and nobody says otherwise (and no battlehip battle of WW2 can't be perfectly modeled , IMHO). However, a good model can be done - and has been done - by Antonio and Alberto.

If anyone has the courage to create a support team , and dedicate the time and energy to peruse the 6 years of debates here , and support Alberto, that person or persons will find many many gems (primary documents, analyses, intermediary conclusions, reports, etc) , and will understand the intricancies of this naval battle better. All this should be made with an opened mind of course... If not totally dedicated , the team members would cause more problems then solutons for Alberto...

Best,
Last edited by alecsandros on Wed May 29, 2019 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3438
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 7:43 pm

Hello everybody,
northcape wrote: "I see a more fundamental issue here, which is the inability of Mr. Virtuani to understand the fundamental difference between assumptions and facts. He has proven this inability at so many times and is continuing to do so, such that I feel for myself that it is futile to have any discussion."
I see a more fundamental issue here, which is the inability of this Mr. "northcape" to understand the fundamental difference between answering arguments and just supporting another forum member like a blind football fan supports his team.... He has proven this inability at so many times and is continuing to do so, such that I feel for myself that he should stop posting at all, until able to provide a (minimum) added value.

And, in the stadium brawl, my question is still unanswered, of course (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&p=83839#p83833).



Alecsandros wrote: "When one side had 10 people and the other has 1, it is unbalanced and unfair."
Hi Alec,
thanks, but if these are the 10 (with what they have in their hands), I can stand 100 of them: I have evidences and facts, they have only their "RN fans" agenda, as demonstrated by the simple inability to answer the above "simple question with cogent answers", preferring to provoke instead... :lol:

"However, a good model can be done - and has been done"
..very annoying for someone, who would have preferred the comfortable "fog of war", apparently...


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)

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 8:09 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 7:43 pm

..very annoying for someone, who would have preferred the comfortable "fog of war", apparently...


Bye, Alberto
Yes, and if anybody goes "up" high enough, there wouldn't even be any battle of DS at all... After all, what's a few minutes in history.....? :D

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

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Byron Angel » Thu May 30, 2019 2:31 pm

Indeed, the fog of war can be easily eliminated by a simple spray bottle filled with some facts and evidence mixed into a solution of assumptions, opinions, inferences, interpolations, extrapolations, guesses, pre-judgments.

Works every time. That is why the study of history is so elementally simple.

I am still awaiting any sort of real evidence to support the claim that British authorities held their tongues in order not to contradict the report of Captain Leach. The same repeated responses offered up so far have nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. I am beginning to suspect that no such evidence exists. As such, it reminds me of the great Bismarck forward bulkhead penetration debate of several months ago.

B

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

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu May 30, 2019 3:48 pm

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "I am still awaiting any sort of real evidence to support the claim that British authorities held their tongues in order not to contradict the report of Captain Leach. "
I'm still awaiting any sort of real evidence to explain the fact that dockyard experts listed reasons why the shell was a 8" but did not to contradict the report of Captain Leach / Adm.Tovey., despite technical evidence was against and no reason for a 15" was mentioned.
I have provided a logic explanation with no factual answer or even a conjectural hypothesis (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=210#p83807) from anybody (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&p=83859#p83833)...

If no alternative explanation exists, while all "technical" evidence point to a 8" , then conclusion should be easy even for someone looking here for pure provocation,[ personal commentary redacted WJJ] (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=210#p83828)...


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: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Bill Jurens » Fri May 31, 2019 1:31 am

I would suspect that those working in the repair facilities, etc. hadn't seen any action reports at all, as such was not required for them to do their duties. As there was no particular advantage in leaning towards any pre-supposed hypothesis -- assuming that even one had been created at the time the examinations were done -- the gentlemen involved listed the best information they had, and were frank enough and honest enough to say that they really couldn't be sure. In any case, it's irrelevant so far as the damage itself was concerned as the projectile hit did whatever damage it did. Differentiating between the two calibers would only have been important had the damage been seen to have been in some way irregular, or demonstrated some defect of construction, etc., where one caliber might have served to protect while the other didn't.

Nobody writing the reports at the time they were created anticipated anyone going over a highly sifted surviving record seventy-plus years into the future with some sort of fine-tooth comb trying to reconstruct events which at the time all men (or in many cases no men) knew.

They looked at the damage, assessed it's relevance to ship construction etc., seeking out previously unknown points of vulnerability, etc., patched up the holes and got on with other more important things. They knew what they needed to know -- and what they didn't need to know -- and moved on...

Bill Jurens

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

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri May 31, 2019 6:08 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "They looked at the damage, assessed it's relevance to ship construction etc."
...and they concluded listing the reasons why the shell couldn't be a 15" while retained the "possibility" it was because either they were aware of Leach's narrative (supported by Tovey) or they had spoken to the Captain/other officers having known what was their official position.

Does anybody has any factual evidence why the shell should have been a 15" ? No. Thus it was a 8", due to the available technical evidences analyzed in dockyard (download/file.php?id=3526).


Bye, Alberto


P.S. what a shame that the "moderator" is still redacting my posts ONLY (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&p=83877#p83859) without doing the same with the professional provoker (he may redact this definition again...) that forced me to answer ...
A very side-taken approach to his role, blatant for everybody by now after he even forced Antonio to leave the forum and after he always supported the deniers theories (instead of being super-partes).
The above reasons make him unworthy to play such a role anymore.
"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)

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by pgollin » Fri May 31, 2019 9:38 am

.

Well done Alberto for again demonstrating why your logic/arguments are so easily dismissed.

Please re-read your post and try to understand the failure.

.

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

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri May 31, 2019 9:47 am

Hello everybody,

when without any argument to counter facts(download/file.php?id=3526) and patiently provided logic explanations (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=210#p83807), the above guy is always coming up with his "zero value-added" posts, judt to vent his helpless anger for supporting the proven wrong side...

My your logic/arguments may be easily dismissed (not by pgollin, as afr as I remember), but I agree it's much more difficult to dismiss his lack of both logic and arguments....


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: 326
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by northcape » Fri May 31, 2019 3:16 pm

pgollin wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 9:38 am


Please re-read your post and try to understand the failure.

.
There is no hope that any understanding will be gained. The best way to stop this painful and meaningless repetitions is not to react anymore. Attention-seeking personalities rely on a stage on which they can flourish, and creating dissens through whatever silly arguments is an effective stage in Internet forums (yes, there is a specific term for this).

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

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri May 31, 2019 4:45 pm

Hello everybody,

Q.E.D.
a kind of football fan club providing support "a priori" to provoking people and "carefully" proposing nothing to counter evidences (download/file.php?id=3526) and explanations (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8552&start=210#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)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Bill Jurens » Fri May 31, 2019 8:02 pm

My perception has been that Mr. Virtuani's commentary, after a warnings have been sent, remain unacceptably aggressive, argumentative, and provocative in tone. Rather than lock the thread, which cuts off All input to the topic at hand, I have, with some regret, decided to ban Mr. Virtuani from the forum for a 24 hour period. In that regard, I have chosen not to redact recent postings in any way so that other participants may be able to see, and judge for themselves, whether they feel this action is appropriate.

It is critical to emphasize, I think, that this action has not been taken to in any way suppress the content of arguments being presented, but primarily in an attempt to control the tone of the discussion and to minimize (or, on hopes, entirely preclude...) personal attacks on participants who may have divergent opinions.

As is (was) the case with Mr. Bonomi, Mr. Virtuani should realize that he is more than welcome to rejoin the forum after the ban has expired. If he does choose to return, and for some reason finds it technically difficult to do so -- e.g. through some sort of unforseen difficulty with logging in , etc. I would encourage him to contact me so that we can work the problem out in detail. The ban is not intended to extend beyond a 24 hour period.

Although this action has been restricted to Mr. Virtuani alone, for now, other participants should keep in mind that in some cases their commentary (in both this and other threads) has been close -- and sometimes somewhat over -- the bounds of acceptability as well. In the heat of the moment, we all can sometimes over-react. In that regard, it is not so much the occasional occurrence of an offensive or provocative comment that is unacceptable; it is the consistent application and insertion of provocative and offensive comments that do not drive the argument forward that damages the utility and enjoyment of the forum


I hope that this decision is congruent with general forum consensus. I would encourage others to comment, either privately or on the forum directly, should they have suggestions as to how things might have been handled differently.


Bill Jurens
as moderator.

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

Re: Message Traffic heard by RODNEY 24 May 1941

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:40 am

Hello everybody,

I bow to this umpteenth demonstration of impartiality.

In the meantime (during my forced absence), I see no one has been able to present any evidence regarding the hit n.2 being a 15" other than Leach narrative....
Can we finally get a consensus that the sheel was a 8" as per the technical reasosn presented in the damage report (download/file.php?id=3526) ?


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:26 am, 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)

Post Reply