"Official" Version of Battle?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Randy, George and all,

Thanks Randy !

YES, I think you got correctly my explanation about the relative or apparent speed ( pardon my not 100 % perfect English therminology knowledge on this ).

But in order to get read also from this problem after I measured versus the water column, so that was not subject to any sea movement and should resolve every issue related to the sea itself.

I know I am not '' short 49 cards '' at all ( but I must admit I do not know what this means, .. I am Italian so I do not know 100 % your idioms ). That guy was confused I suppose, I did made some joking on responding ( and it is according to my known personality ) but it was very clearly not ( and never will ) my intention to offend him or anybody.
The answer was just unexpected and incredible.
I do not know from which reason that happened, but I am always open to give him my hand and forget it.
We are here to enjoy and discuss on our passion and share our research, that of course are based on our skills and competences, not to get upset.

Thanks also for supporting my request on ''cooling off '' the whole DS discussion, I am trying to reduce only to value add stuff the post as much as I can .

to George :

I have looked again the film but to make a call about the sea direction is very difficult, it appears to be on the same German ships sailing direction ( especially when PG turns at the beginning ), maybe a bit more south ( course 200 ° degrees ), but probably there are official references about this on the English documents, I will check.
The wind was just blowing on same German ship direction on course 220 ° degree from their back and this is on Busch maps.

Of course any additional '' expert '' anybody can bring into this is more than welcome for me, no problems.

What I can say is that to evaluate well those photos and film and provide real value add one must know perfectly the subject ( Bismarck ) and all the Naval related matters, and on this so far I do not recognize anybody better than Bill Jurens.

Any '' external '' to this world would need expert support to make good evaluations.

If in May/ June as I hope I will have the original film, than Bill Jurens will be my only reference for the evaluation, this is for sure.

His works ( just look the Hood publication ) speacks for himself and I can anticipate that his study on Nh 69722 is a very high professional type of job.

You can trust my judgement on this since for 20 years I have been doing high technology new product process release and supported Laboratory failure analysis with related publications, .... so I think I know what I am talking about here quite well.

Ciao Antonio

[George Elder]

Hi Antonio:

I will ask a friend of mine who has access to experts who decipher photos for a living -- as in military work. They are busy people, but they might look on this exercise as an interesting case study. If we can get such help for free, that would be a good thing. The reason I'm not sure about taking measurements based on water column effects is farily clear in that part of the residual effects we see as and after the column collapses are due to the generation of bubbles -- which is an ongoing process that is subject to environmental factors such as current flow. But I am no expert on sea current's effects on bubbles, nor am I sure of the current direction! As for Bill's experise, I am not sure what his degree is in. Generally, one prefers expertise that is directly related to the topic at hand -- as in photographs and optics. I know he has some experience in these areas. So his view, and that of others, might be the best way to go -- if we can enlist others. Overall, I am confident that results will be achieved.

George

[Bill Jurens]

Well, I can't say I have an advanced degree in the subject, but I do teach photogrammetry and photo interpretation at the college level, so that must count for something. At any rate, I can assure you that I didn't just fall off the turnip truck so far as photogrammetry is concerned.

Bill Jurens

[Randy Stone]

Assuming the current is exerting the same force...on a 50,000 ton moving vessel as it is on ... bubbles ?
George

Easily. The force the current exerts on any body here will be the same but in the grand scheme of things here it isn't a particularly meaningful issue.

Antonio:

Missing "49 cards out of a deck (of 52)" or "being a few bricks short of a load" or "the lights are on but nobody's home" are all comments which connote or imply that someone doesn't have anything between their ears. That was what the guy was saying.

You're right, he is confused; just as reversing photographs is a confusing endeavor .

The wind is as what the Baron has always stated and this is to be expected with Lutjens running along the eastern side of a high pressure system (which establishes that the photographs were never reversed -- as I've always maintained).

There is every reason to expect that current nautical charts will depict the current in the Strait so it would be an easy thing to determine the direction and speed of the current here, no problem.

I do not believe we need someone from Caltech or the NSA or that we need people with advanced degrees. Welcomed ? Yes. Necessary ? No.

Randy

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Randy and all,

thanks for your explanation of the idioms Randy, ... now at least I got some positive things out of that incident.

YES, definitively this reversing '' fashion'' and '' intention to make a scoop '' or to maintain a supposed one is creating too many problems and I can easily understand why, .. many will loose their '' face ''.

I agree, everybody expert is welcome, needed NOT for sure, .. because what we need is not people that can tell us what the photos are showing precisely, we already have enough clear evaluations from several skilled people.

What we need is people willing to change their mind in front of what is evident and demonstrated.

Facts are demonstrating that this guys will not change in front of clear written statements, official documents and already clear photos.
They will always find something to hang on to not to admit and accept to have lost already and very evidently too.

So, one can bring in 10 new experts, nothing will change for the ones that only need not to admit, at any cost as we see.

Just look at what will happen with Nh 69722 evaluation soon ( I already read some pre-conceived statements to be ready to refute the call that will be made shortly ).

I will stay with Bill Jurens as my reference photo/film expert and continue on value add work only, and leave those guys to their destiny.

Hopefully a closed chapter !

Ciao Antonio

[Robert J. Winklareth]

Hi Jose,

You seem determined to make the point that the reversed photographs are a key point in my concept of the battle. I don't deny that because it obviously contributes to the overall proof that the Bismarck was always on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle, the basic difference between my concept and Antonio's Reconstruction.

Of course the earlier books made no mention of the reversed photographs since my book "The Bismarck Chase" was the first book to reveal that fact. However, the Baron in his book "Battleship Bismarck" made no mention of the Bismarck turning to starboard at the same time that the Prince of Wales withdrew from the scene of the battle. This leaves the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen throughout Phase II of the battle.

The battle diagrams in the books by noted Bismarck historians Paul Schmalenbach, Elfrath & Herzog, and Koop & Schmolke all show the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle. The Baron subsequently used Paul Scmalenbach's diagram for the latest versions of his own book, lending further credibility as to its accuracy.

The order given for the Prinz Eugen not to shoot over the Bismarck, as reported in the Prinz Eugen War Diary, puts the Bismarck moving up on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle. The broadside view of the Bismarck off the port beam of the Prinz Eugen is further proof that the Bismarck came up on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle.

And finally, the six reversed photographs of the Bismarck, when shown in their proper orientation, all depict the Bismarck on the port side of the Bismarck during Phase II of the battle. I need not go into the factors that tend to prove that the six photographs had been in fact reversed, like the port side of the Bismarck being in the shadow of the flash of her guns. Or the lack of smoke on the near (port) side of the Bismarck, which is further evidence of reversal.

Antonio's Reconstruction, on the other hand, shows the Bismarck on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen during Phase II of the battle. The only evidence supporting this theory oif the battle are the six photographs shown in their original reversed orientation. Discounting those photographs, Antonio has absolutely nothing to support his one and only "official" version of the battle.

You can ignore the facts, but that will not serve the high goal of seeking the truth in the matter.

Bob

[George Elder]

Randy:

Antonio has a firm grasp of what I am saying with regard to how the current's direction will influence the calculations of speed if the current is running at an angle relative to the course of the ship and the marker one is using as a speed indicator. This is especily the case if the heading of the ship and the marker being used to judge speed are different, as in the marker traveling in the direction of the current while the ship is on another bearing, which may well be then case here. This is fairly basic stuff. As for bubbles and the current's influence on them vs a ship, please prove whatever point you are trying to make -- if any.

George

[Randy Stone]

...you brought up the point in the following comment (Sun Feb 20, 2005 7:17 am):

"I am not quite pleased with your speed measurement tool. ...The problem here is that the circle is constantly moving with the direction of the current, and even if this current is only 2-3 knots and the time frame is very small..."

and (Mon Feb 21, 2005 4:17 am),

"Assuming the current is exerting the same force on a 50,000 ton moving vessel as it is on ... bubbles..."

about which Antonio quite correctly pointed out (Sun Feb 20, 2005 8:00 pm):

Moving to the speed of Bismarck I am sure you know and realize the concept of relative speed, YES the circle is moving with the sea current but same thing does for Bismarck on the water, so the relative effect is zero as we need only the apparent (my [Randy's] term as mentioned earlier) speed.

The point being -- as Antonio correctly noted -- that the effects of the current can be considered as exerting every bit as much force upon Bismarck as upon the water bubbles. Hence, the current is cancelled out of the equation. Therefore, his estimation of Bismarck's speed is probably very close to spot on. And certainly close enough for government work, as they say.

Had you mentioned the effects of sail area -- for instance -- then you may have had a point, but to imply that the '...problem,' as you called it, is that the current imposes a vector upon the bubbles but not Bismarck is incorrect. A ship's course always accounts for the effects (or lack thereof) of the ocean's currents. That's one difference between heading and course, variation and deviation are others. As you wrote, this is fairly basic stuff; I'm surprised this one got by you.

Antonio's estimations are pretty darned good; if I were you I'd settle for 30 knots and move on to the next issue.

Randy

[George Elder]

When I asked you about the relative influence the current has on bubbles vs a BB, I thought you might be able to grasp what you now articlate -- with wind-related surface area effects only being one confound that militates against the current being able to exert congruent influences on both objects in question. There are other effects to consider that go hand-and-hand with all this (object depth, friction coefficients, etc.), and all these have an influence on the relative position of the bubble marker and the ship as influenced by the currents -- and must be compensated for -- as I have said. And yes, these factors make it problematic to assume any co-equal influence of current direction in this case. But all this drivel is pointless because there is ample evidence that the Bismarck was traveling at at least 29 knots. The central point relates to the distance the Bis and PE were apart at the beginning of the encounter, and I trust progress will be made on that front.

George

[Randy Stone]

...drivel indeed.

George, you made no comments about these other factors at all -- at least until now -- (see your original 'displeasure' Sun Feb 20, 2005 7:17 am) and the fact remains that the effects of current would apply equally to Bismarck and the bubbles..as such the issue is moot -- the effects are cancelled out.

Frankly, you've demonstrated that you failed to understand the math one bit. So I see only one reason to muddy the waters with terms like congruent, co-equal, articulate and the like. George, you're swinging after the bell; just admit you goofed...you were in over your head, if you'll pardon the pun. All in good fun .

Now that you stipulate that Bismarck was moving at a rate of at least 29 knots -- something reasonably close to Antonio's 30 knots -- I wonder what became of your 'displeasure' over Antonio's estimation.

However, let me share with you how you can easily calculate the effects (not that it matters) of the current:

Go down to your local Pilot's Shop and spring $30 or so out for an E6 Flight Computer -- your option as to specific subtype. On the back you'll find a compass rose. On that rose establish Bismarck as the 'zero' point and then calculate the current at different rates and different angular directions from zero. You can go 360 degrees if you want but we'd settle for 45 degrees either side of Bismarck's course and the reciprocal.

From there the calculations are simple and you can then construct a compass rose of current effects against Bismarck -- your original complaint, by the way. From that you can enlighten us as to the effects the current would have upon Antonio's estimation, at varying speeds and courses.

But you've now conceded that Antonio is correct to within 3% -- which makes me wonder what you were complaining about in the first place (Sun Feb 20, 2005 7:17 am) -- I'd bet it's half that.

As I wrote, Antonio's estimations are pretty darned close and I'd expect to see half of that 3% shaved off, giving (theoretically) a sea speed of 29.65 - 30.45 knots. I'll give you the opportunity to work those calculations out for us and let us in on the results...it would be a useful exercise for you as well.

Like you said...pretty basic stuff and the practice will do you well; like I said...you might as well go with Antonio's estimate of 30 knots and move on.

Enough said.

Randy

[George Elder]

... but I think you have the shoe on the wrong foot. I have explained ad nosium why a current cannot exert an identical effect on objects that are of such disparate natures as bubbles and a ship. You already noted that wind is one mitigating factor, which is evident in the differing influence that this factor and other variables have on the objects in question relative to the force the current is exerting. Then you run away from all that and go back to the land of repitition. Well, what can one say?
Lastly, you note "But you've now conceded that Antonio is correct to within 3%..." Fact check time. I consider the Bismarck's speed to be an unknown, and thus Antonio may be right or wrong... as may my estimate of 29 knots. Hense, what is to be conceded by anyone -- and what an odd word to use? What I have argued, is that using shell splashes to calculate speed is probably not an ideal tool -- given the nature of bubbles and what not. The record and PE's speed gives a fair indication of Bismarck's probable speed, and although you seem to think you can peg it down to 0.01 place or so -- I well recall how poorly you did with the GM vs assymetric waterplane flooding problem.
But I agree that it is time to move on, for when we get down to arguing about bubble the absurdity light goes off. On a positive note, it seems you have developed the capacity to consistantly sign postings using your own name and that is a refreshing bit of honesty given past occurences.

George viably amused, but seeing nothing to be learned here.

[Randy Stone]

...I am not up to the goobledygook so you have me there.

As for recanting your estimate of Bismarck's speed, that's certainly your privilege although one wonders why you ventured the thought at all.

In any event, the basis for your 'displeasure' at Antonio's speed estimate has been established as unfounded and you haven't managed any serious argument against Antonio's method...which is a sound method as I have demonstrated. You did check my work with the computer as I suggested, didn't you ?

I am stating -- and you have yet to refute -- that Antonio's estimation is correct; if you think the estimate of roughly 30 +/- 0.5 knots is incorrect or that these estimates would actually alter the substance of his remarks and calculations, I am willing to review any data you can muster.

Randy, who senses George is strapping on yet another parachute

[George Elder]

... if you keep this up. Your statments indicate that you've established nothing, especialy the viability of Antonio using the water column as a speed indicater. Heck, and we never even ventured into the directional impetus imparted to the water column by the shell's impact, the current's effect (if much or any) on the ejected water column, the influence of the wind on the water column, where the column lands in light of these factors relative to the Bismarck, and other variables that come to mind to even a casual observer. I am positive Antonio understands my concerns here, and he certainly has demonstrated the inherant capacity to deal with complexities such as these. Moreover, I know Antonio will take the time and effort to do so. Yet there you go... offering to show us you can do math -- or at least repeat Antonio's math. Gosh who'd have thunk it?

George, more bored than amused, and wasting time.

[Randy Stone]

...resorting yet again to ad hominem attacks, evasions and other assorted diversions.

And, with all due respect, you had been doing so well lately.

For God's sake George, get a grip. All that was asked of you was to justify your assertion that Antonio's estimations are in any substantive error as a result of the effects of the current.

So far all you've managed is assorted off topic comments about ejected water columns, the wind and such. And all this minutia has nothing to do with your original comment to begin with...they're just after the fact dodges.

This is getting like your total misunderstanding of, and complete misquotation of, Bill Jurens' comments regarding USN AA a while back; or those complete misrepresentations made of Morison and Captain Whiting of Massachusetts. Same old, same old.

Not incidentally, you have still to justify your assertion that Antonio's figures are questionable which, I suspect, is why you continue ad nauseum on and on rather than actually coming out to play by providing real data...and you know how I like real data and details. Here's your chance to shine; I'd certainly be happy to review any data you can provide to support your position.

But, to be quite frank George, we both can see you painted yourself into a corner; we both know Antonio knows what he's talking about because he pointed out to you the apparent motion to be measured, how it was measured and the fact that the effects of the current are inconsequential...well, actually he says the effects don't amount to anything, I agree.

You fail to grasp the concept. You now have compounded that by going on about ejected water columns, directional impetus and other inconsequential minutia. Of course, I could be wrong about winblown spray having any effects on the calculations but the least you could do is provide some basis for your assertions that these factors actually have any measurable effects...or to what degree they alter the estimated speed of Bismarck by much more than...say 0.5 knot.

On the other hand, I have once again shared with you the manner by which you could, at the very least, provide a means of assessing what it is you thought was so lacking in Antonio's data, at least with regard to the influence of the current. You haven't managed to do so. I did and again I shared with you the resulting data. Apparently, since the data doesn't coincide with your preconceived notions it is to be ignored. Same old, same old.

Instead, you have spent gallons of cyber ink complaining and here, having provided you with a means of supporting your position -- as tenuous as it is -- you can't manage the meagre calculations which would have taken less time to run than the time you spent attempting to write your way out of your corner.

It's just my opinion George, for what it's worth, but a more respectful and graceful exit would have been for you to simply admit you had no data and, therefore, no basis for making a poorly thought out statement regarding Antonio's estimation of Bismarck traveling at 30 knots.

And that -- as they say -- would have been that.

But no, apparently -- strike that -- obviously, that was too much to expect.

Regardless, the estimate of 30 knots is one with which my calculations concur. Calculations I am positive Antonio shares with me...seeing as how we're appropriating him for our arguments now George.

So the bottom line is that Bismarck was running at some 30 +/- 0.5 knots, Antonio's method of calculation is sound and the effects of current are inconsequential in this measurement.

As I wrote before, you ought to just figure on the 30 knots and move on, like you said you would.

Randy, vastly amused at the display of hubris .

[George Elder]

Gosh, calm down or you'll pop a blood vessel. So many words, and so little said. You claim:

"...the apparent motion to be measured, how it was measured and the fact that the effects of the current are inconsequential...well, actually he says the effects don't amount to anything, I agree."

Prove it, quantify it, dazzle me with your viable grasp of math.

George, bored