bismark-after torpedo hit

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Bill Jurens » Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:50 pm

Mr. Virtuani has returned. His comments are received for information. Although he may feel some commentary is inappropriate, it will be noted that I have allowed all comments -- from either side -- to stand as posted.

Let us from this point attempt to consider personal commentary closed, and concentrate on the history itself, not upon the real or imagined personal agendas of various participants to the board.

That being said, one item, I believe, does require attention. Mr. Virtuani has repeatedly accused me of plagiarism with regard to the Denmark Strait track chart as published in "Battleship Bismarck -- A Design and Operational History", and repeatedly challenged me to post a defense. Rather than fan the flames of what what I felt would almost certainly represent the initiation of a lengthy destructive discourse, and because Mr. Vitruani was not able to immediately engage, I have -- other than making a brief response earlier -- refrained from replying until now.

In that regard, I have, for the reference of interested readers, attached an enlarged though otherwise unedited section of the scan -- the essential portion of the track chart showing the 'meat' of the gunnery action -- which Mssrs Bonomi and Virtuani themselves provided to support of their accusations of plagiarism. I leave it for readers to judge for themselves to what extent one track is copied from the other, keeping in mind that both charts are essentially derived from the same primary sources, meaning that some resemblances are essentially inevitable.

I believe the attachment speaks for itself, and do not really intend to participate in lengthy extensive discussions on the subject.
SCAN FOR POSTING.jpg
(95.65 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:07 pm

Hello everybody,
HMSVF wrote: "It's not the map that causes the controversy - it's the conclusions that have been drawn from it."
I'm not sure I follow this point. What do you mean exactly ?

The map is key to read the battle and to understand how it developed, with timings for the main events..

Both Antonio's 2005 map and pag.211 map from the new book are showing exactly the same battle reconstruction.
Forgetting for a moment the discussion about the reason why they are almost exactly the same map, it's clear that, still in 2019, there is no way to reconstruct the battle in a radically different way.
I follow your reasoning about the limited technology available at the time, but the absence of any alternative, even in the most recent publications, is showing that this is the only possible "solution" to the problem of putting together the ships on a map.

In case the "conclusions" you refer to are the Court Martial and the cover-up, than
1) the CM is an historical fact for all authors who have written about the operation, the recent documents made available here just confirm it and
2) the cover-up is easily demonstrated by a quick comparison between May 30 preliminary report of Adm.Tovey (written when he was not yet aware of the "menace") and the final "despatches" (carefully embellishing the story due to the threat). Please let me know in case you want me to post once again the two reports in their key sentences.



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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:26 pm

Hello everybody,
I had said in the appropriate thread (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8347#p84853) that I would not have spoken again here about the creatorship of the map, however I see that Bill Jurens has decided to use this thread to explain his point of view, therefore I will answer here.
Bill Jurens wrote: "I have, for the reference of interested readers, attached an enlarged though otherwise unedited section of the scan -- the essential portion of the track chart showing the 'meat' of the gunnery action -- which Mssrs Bonomi and Virtuani themselves provided to support of their accusations of plagiarism....."
Thanks for posting a snapshot of what Antonio has already made available in full to the naval community in his mails. However, you have very carefully avoided to post the Bismarck track (that is the real value of Antonio reconstruction as it is not available in original and that is based on his analysis of photos and film) and the full Norfolk track: both are identical, almost at the level of the single pixel, between the two maps.
But what is more important is that the real reconstruction work is actually done when you put together these tracks, not in the refinement of a single track, that is the only "difference" you were able to show us.... The positioning of the various tracks is evidently the same in the 2 maps (see the attachment below), including the timings when tracks intersect.

Even looking at your limited snapshot, it's easy to see that differences are immaterial and minimal (as the track of BC1 is known from the very similar PoW maps), basically being a slight reduction (half a mile) of the BC1 sailed distance and, as a consequence, of the distance from Hood and Bismarck at explosion time..... Is this your "added value" to Antonio's work that allowed you to sign his map ?

What is 100% clear (even in your snapshot) is that the Norfolk track, wrongly positioned in Antonio's 2005 map (as he was not really interested in the position of the heavy cruisers at that time), is exactly the same in both maps and it is positioned in exactly the same way compared to BC1 and the German squadron (not respecting the known relative bearings viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231&start=195#p79486)....

If even the "errors" are the same on both maps, then there is only one possible conclusion: one has been copied from the other one...




For completeness, as you seem "reluctant" to allow everyone to make up his mind, posting "your" pag.211 map, I will post here (in low definition as the forum does not allow me to post a 6+ Mb image) the full "superimposition" of the 2 maps, as kindly already provided by Antonio to the naval community.

Maps_superimposed_reduced3.jpg
Maps_superimposed_reduced3.jpg (110.1 KiB) Viewed 809 times

No doubt, even at first glance, that the 2 maps are the same one and that they are very different from all the other battlemaps (including your own one from 2002 download/file.php?id=3301): what did make you changing your mind ?



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: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Byron Angel » Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:57 am

Mr Virtuani,
Here is my suggestion. If you believe that this map issue is of such importance, hire an attorney or file a plea with the United Nations. Just, whatever you decide to do, PLEASE stop filling the forum with your endlessly repetitive diatribes. I don't know how others here feel, but I am damned tired of tripping over it every time I visit the forum.

Your friend,
Byron Angel

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by northcape » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:38 am

Byron Angel wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:57 am
Mr Virtuani,
Here is my suggestion. If you believe that this map issue is of such importance, hire an attorney or file a plea with the United Nations. Just, whatever you decide to do, PLEASE stop filling the forum with your endlessly repetitive diatribes. I don't know how others here feel, but I am damned tired of tripping over it every time I visit the forum.

Your friend,
Byron Angel
Don't feed the troll.

There are only two way how to deal with this: (1) Removal of the problematic user from the forum. (2) Every other user exerts self-discipline on him/herself and completely ignores the postings of the problematic user.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:51 am

Hello everybody,
Byron Angel wrote: "I am damned tired of tripping over it every time I visit the forum."
...and I should be more than "damned tired of tripping over" these "supporters" of the moderator, jumping in each time he is in clear difficulties: the superimposition of the two maps closes the discussion forever, I guess viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725&p=84866#p84860....

Whoever is tired, can take a rest instead of jumping in with no argument re.the maps themselves: (here is my suggestion...).

P.S. Any legal action may be with the owner of the original map: Antonio. Not with me: our map from 2017 has not been copied yet....


Northcape wrote: "Don't feed the troll."
Repeated insult (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725&p=84827&hilit=troll#p84827, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=84790&hilit=troll#p84790), against me and against the forum rules but.. tolerated both by the moderator and the administrator...

Of course no factual argument, as well as above... just personal anger for having been proved wrong in all these years regarding Antonio's 2005 reconstruction (+ the suggestion of an easy way to get back to a personal comfortable situation, "eliminating" the opponent.... No comment).



It's indeed very funny to see how the battlemap argument, that once was interesting for everyone (who unsuccessfully tried in any way to demolish Antonio's work from 2013 on), now that his work has been "blessed" (?) as the best possible reconstruction, annoys so deeply.... Please, ask yourself why...



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)

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 904
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by paul.mercer » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:38 am

Gentlemen,
This subject has gone way 'off topic', it was supposed to be about Bismarck's options after the torpedo hit on her rudder. I don't wish to be rude to Alberto, or any of our fellow contributors, but it seems to me that this argument (and I use this word in place of 'debate') is not likely to be resolved at all while people hold such different views and will only get more and more heated as time goes on. This is not good for the Forum and must get very tiresome for those who see a topic that they are interested in being hijacked by another which has nothing to do with the subject.
I would suggest that we have several options open to us 1) Move the subject of the map and all that it entails to a dedicated thread, 2) Having done so stop the arguing and vitriol and thrash out the subject by reasoned debate, preferably within a given time frame so it doesn't go on for ever or 3) drop the subject altogether (my personal preferred option, as it seems to me that most of what could be said has already been said in several threads already.)
Whatever is decided, I think we should consider the good of the Forum first, We are all here because we enjoy being here, discussing not only Bismarck but many other subjects that we are interested in and gaining information and increasing our knowledge from each other's experience.
As I have said before, if we continue the aggressive attitudes that have been displayed over the last few months we are risking not only losing our Moderator but the entire Forum should Mr Rico decide that enough is enough.
I'm sure there are many more subjects 'out there' just waiting to be discussed so lets not kill something that we all enjoy.
Paul

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:54 am

Hi Paul,
very respectfully, as you are always very fair in your posts, removing the matters that are inconvenient is just an hypocrisy.

I had said that the correct thread would have been another (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725&start=15#p84852, viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8347#p84853), but, as Mr.Jurens has chosen to "argument" here, I have answered in the same thread.

No problem to move the discussion to the above thread, starting immediately if Mr.Jurens agrees, but please don't ask to "sweep uncomfortable things under the rug" in order to stay more quiet....



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: 745
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:54 pm

Although I have no objection to someone starting another thread devoted to the Denmark Strait battle-map -- ANOTHER thread on the Denmark Strait battle-map -- I can honestly see no constructive purpose in doing so.

Mr. Virtuani, and I presume Mr. Bonomi, feel that the track chart as published in "Design and Operational History" represents a copy of his (their?) own work. I have taken the position that although the new version is in some areas visually (and, because sources are the same, somewhat unavoidably) similar to Mr. Bonomi's version, the version in the book can more fairly represented as an amalgamation of a variety of sources, which is in fact how it was prepared. There are similarities. There are significant differences as well. I know how it was drawn because I was the one that drew it.

As I understand it, Mr. Bonomi's contributions to 'Design and Operational History' were recognized in the acknowledgement section and in other areas as well. (If they were not, that was an unintentional omission.) So far as individual source attribution on the map itself is concerned, I am at a loss as to how this might have been adequately achieved. As the map is definitely not a direct copy, attributing it to Mr. Bonomi would be incorrect, as there are a variety of areas where the track charts are different and a good deal of additional data (e.g. the latitude/longitude grid) has been added, and a number of areas (e.g. the addition of photo interpretation images)which I felt to be unreliable and inaccurate has been omitted. Where the tracks are the same or nearly so, as in the relative positions of Hood and Prince of Wales immediately prior to 'open fire', to whom should acknowledgement be given -- the individual who kept the written logs on Prince of Wales, the individual(s) who prepared previous track charts based on this material or someone else entirely, or perhaps someone else? Without dissecting the chart into a hopeless maze of individual acknowledgements detailing precisely what portion of each reconstructed track might have been derived from some specific source (which has, so far as I know, never been done in the literature before) exactly what is one to do? It's a dog's breakfast.

I will repeat my previous statements acknowledging, with appreciation, Mr. Bonomi's (and perhaps Mr. Virtuani's?) contribution to the track chart as published in the book. Mr. Bonomi's analysis over the years -- in fairness coupled with the work of many others -- has helped to move towards a reasonable historical consensus regarding what a Denmark Strait track chart can, and cannot, adequately depict. We should all be grateful for that.

The version depicted in 'Design and Operational History' represents represents what I feel to be the best geometric consensus of a wide variety of primary and secondary sources -- Mr. Bonomi's amongst them -- which are often variant and are occasionally frankly contradictory. My name is on it because I drew it, and others should know from whence this particular version springs.

All that being said, I really don't think there is much (or anything) to be gained by participating in a series of lengthy scholastic arguments revolving around precisely which portions of the 'Operational History' track chart can be tracked back to, and uniquely identified with, Mr. Bonomi's previous reconstructions. It would be fair to say that he contributed to the chart. It would be fair to say that his contribution was acknowledged in the book, though perhaps not to the degree he might feel appropriate. It would be fair to say, as well, that the rendition as published in 'Operational History' -- at least as I see it -- represents but one step further ahead in what might be well described as a collaborative and cumulative historical safari made up of the contributions of many individuals, many of whom who are now dead, all of whom contributing what they could.

Bill Jurens.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:57 pm

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "..Mr. Virtuani, and I presume Mr. Bonomi, feel that the track chart as published in "Design and Operational History" represents a copy of his (their?) own work.....I will repeat my previous statements acknowledging, with appreciation, Mr. Bonomi's (and perhaps Mr. Virtuani's?) contribution to the track chart"
First of all, I have to clearly point out that my contribution to Antonio's 2005 battlemap is zero. At that time I knew Antonio only as a brilliant colleague working for the same big company.
I have just contributed (marginally, I must admit) to the battlemap published in 2017 article (download/file.php?id=2313), a refinement of the 2005 one with a much more precise positioning of the British heavy cruisers.



Coming to the point of this discussion, I appreciate the change of attitude in your last post and I will do my best to cope with it.
Bill Jurens wrote: "As the map is definitely not a direct copy, attributing it to Mr. Bonomi would be incorrect...."
I agree that pag.211 is not a mere "photocopy" of Antonio's 2005 map, but here we speak about intellectual property of the reconstruction because the differences between the 2 maps are limited to the sole BC1 tracks refinement from 5:55 till 6:25 (with a max half a mile difference). Obviously, I would say, because BC1 tracks are quite well known.

The first value adding step is to correctly place Prinz Eugen tarck vs the BC1 tracks.
The second (and much more difficult) step is to reconstruct the Bismarck track.
The third (and even more difficult) step is to reconstruct the cruisers track (due to the absence of their "tactical plots"...)

The first two steps, accomplished with the 2005 map, represent the intellectual property of Antonio's 2005 work. Pag.211 map is identical to Antonio's 2005 map in both these aspects (except the slight modification we have seen above).



Now the first direct question, please I would appreciate a direct answer from you: as you still claim "I know how it was drawn because I was the one that drew it", then please tell us how could you reconstruct the track of the Bismarck? (both maps are identical for the Germans tracks, at the level of the single pixel, including the closure rate of Bismarck over Prinz Eugen from 5:50 till 6:03)

Antonio explained in his 2005 article that he was able to do this work analysing the photos and the film, this is the method he has used. You yourself say "...and a number of areas (e.g. the addition of photo interpretation images) which I felt to be unreliable and inaccurate has been omitted... ".
Now, without analysing the photos and the film, how could you do the same work Antonio did in 2005 (and come to the same conclusions e.g. about the BS speed advantage over PG of exactly 3 knots) ?
The errors in the captions at pag.227 and 228 in your book (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526&start=45#p84777) demonstrates that you have not followed Antonio's method (and I would say not even checked your own battlemap).




The clearest demonstration of the "adoption" of Antonio's battlemap is however the wrong positioning of the Norfolk track: Antonio in 2005 was not interested into the British cruisers position and when I started working with him to our 2017 battlemap, I asked him why he had put Norfolk in that position: his answer was that he just put it more or less randomly...
Actually the "green" bearing (agreed as being reliable) are not respected in both your and Antonio's maps. When an error is "adopted" then I'm afraid that the only possible conclusion is that the second map is taken from the first one.

Thus the second direct question to you : how did you position the Norfolk track on the map ?


Bill Jurens wrote: "It would be fair to say that he contributed to the chart. "
This is sure. Thanks for admitting it.

What would have been fair was to get Antonio's permission to use his map or at least (in my opinion only) to have the map published on your book with a caption stating: "Figure 10.1: Denmark Strait Action 24 May 1941: rework of W.Jurens of A.Bonomi original battlemap" (as we always write when we publish an article using someone else drawing, profile of ship etc, even if we modify or even improve the original ourself).



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)

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 904
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by paul.mercer » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:44 pm

Gentlemen,
My thanks to both Bill and Alberto for their comments on my last post, I do appreciate that they have taken the time to read and reply to them.
I'm afraid that I am at a bit of a loss what to say next, I have in the past tried on several occasions to tone down the content of some of the posts by politely informing people that the Forum is a place for reasoned debate and not a battle ground, seemingly with little success. Both Bill and Alberto have made their points very clear on several occasions that what they personally believe is correct and there seems to be little that can be added without causing yet more friction.
I realise that Alberto may still feel aggrieved and does not want to have this particular topic shut down and one must appreciate his point of view, but if we read back over some of the comments in the last few posts from at least five regular contributors it becomes very clear that they are getting very fed up with the continual bickering over this subject, with Alberto being the sole defender of Antonio Bonomi, who, although he was only suspended for a short time, has chosen not to re-enter the Forum and defend himself and with Bill being put in the very awkward position of being both Moderator and contributor and having to defend himself against accusations of plagiarism.
Judging from even the limited response to my suggestions, it would appear that there is little appetite to carry on this subject on a dedicated thread or to thrash it out to the end (by which time most of us will probably have left the Forum through boredom anyway!), so quite frankly I feel we should go to my last option and shut this subject down now before it poisons the whole Forum.
Your comments please, gentlemen.

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:44 pm

I would generally concur that constructive commentary on the track chart issue has now been essentially exhausted. Both sides have made their cases. Rather than lock the thread, I will at this point simply defer from further correspondence on this issue. Presumably Mr. Virtuani will do the same.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Oct 08, 2019 8:18 am

Hello everybody,

as things are clear for everybody, fully appreciating the difficulty to address my direct questions (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8725&start=30#p84873), I will cope with Mr.Jurens "deferral" request above and I will therefore refrain from further (redundant) commentary about the true "creatorship" of the map (in case the other members are able to "exert self-discipline" too :wink:).


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: 2063
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by wadinga » Tue Oct 08, 2019 2:08 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Returning after a lengthy diversion, to the subject in hand, in neither case of disabling stern damage involving Prinz Eugen or Lutzow did anybody resort to the desperate measure of "Blowing things off" to regain harbour. Lutzow was towed home with her stern hanging down.

We have the opinion of a respected naval architect that even were the Bismarck's rudders to have disappeared entirely, steering using the propellers only would have been impractical. A ship's longitudinal stability ie ability to hold a given course while passing through the water depends on her hull shape, including flow across the rudder(s). There is also the considerable effect of waves striking the hull, especially gale generated ones knocking bow or stern off course. But in addition to the hydrodynamic effects, the influence of a second, less-dense medium, ie the air pressing against the above water structure makes huge difference too. This is termed windage, and is particularly disturbing to maintaining ships' heading at low through the water speeds since the normally stronger hydrodynamic force maintaining heading is low. It is much like trying to stay upright on a bicycle without pedalling forwards.

What remained of her rudders caused her to circle helplessly but no rudders at all would in the weather conditions prevailing have probably been just as bad.

All the best

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

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: bismark-after torpedo hit

Post by HMSVF » Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:49 pm

wadinga wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 2:08 pm
Fellow Contributors,

Returning after a lengthy diversion, to the subject in hand, in neither case of disabling stern damage involving Prinz Eugen or Lutzow did anybody resort to the desperate measure of "Blowing things off" to regain harbour. Lutzow was towed home with her stern hanging down.

We have the opinion of a respected naval architect that even were the Bismarck's rudders to have disappeared entirely, steering using the propellers only would have been impractical. A ship's longitudinal stability ie ability to hold a given course while passing through the water depends on her hull shape, including flow across the rudder(s). There is also the considerable effect of waves striking the hull, especially gale generated ones knocking bow or stern off course. But in addition to the hydrodynamic effects, the influence of a second, less-dense medium, ie the air pressing against the above water structure makes huge difference too. This is termed windage, and is particularly disturbing to maintaining ships' heading at low through the water speeds since the normally stronger hydrodynamic force maintaining heading is low. It is much like trying to stay upright on a bicycle without pedalling forwards.

What remained of her rudders caused her to circle helplessly but no rudders at all would in the weather conditions prevailing have probably been just as bad.

All the best

wadinga
For what’s its worth I agree. If the people on the spot (who knew their ship inside out) recognised that they were effectively finished then they were finished.

What a bloody awful way to go though. Hours of waiting with the knowledge that the odds of individual survival was very small. Perhaps a modicum of comfort can be taken from the fact that HMS Hood sank so quickly. One minute she was a fighting machine,the next she was wrecked.Still an awful way to die but at least it wasn’t such a prolonged event.


Best wishes


HMSVF

Post Reply