Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:34 pm

Hello everybody,

I would like on this thread to analyze the Bismarck course and photo correlation after her second turn from course 270° back on course 220° occurred around the 06:05/06:06 battle time.

DS_BS_after_second_turn.jpg
DS_BS_after_second_turn.jpg (24.97 KiB) Viewed 553 times

We can use as reference the demo I have provided on another thread to check the correct main turrets orientation toward the enemy PoW during this 5 minutes period of time, ... between 06:05 and 06:09 battle time.

Demo_10.jpg
Demo_10.jpg (39.53 KiB) Viewed 553 times

As you can verify easily I have just substituted the PG original track with an easier to use/read version in graphic format and added on top the full Bismarck track in analysis, the one I have published on my 2005 article battle map :

Bearings_demo_02.jpg
Bearings_demo_02.jpg (51.59 KiB) Viewed 553 times

Value add opinions are welcome ... :wink:

Bye Antonio
Attachments
Demo_10.jpg
Demo_10.jpg (39.53 KiB) Viewed 554 times
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:05 am

Hello everybody,

so lets start with the first of my attached photo sequence, the photo number 16 on my 2005 battle map :

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrai ... trait1.htm

that photo is numbered NH 69727 on the US Naval Historical center archive and Bild 146-1968-015-22 at the Bundesarchiv :

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... 69727.html

you can download an HIGH resolution photo image from the above link.

Here an analysis of the photo details done many years ago :

http://hmshood.com/history/denmarkstrait/nh69727.htm

If we assume Bismarck from a course 270° having just started her second turn 50° to port soon after the 06:05 battle time, ... we can be lets assume at around 260°, ... and the PoW on bearing 145, ... then we have 260-145 = 115° that means subtracting the beam 90°, ... the main turrets to be rotated 25° aft the beam in order to fire at the target PoW, ... of course everything with due tolerances to be applied on my reasoning.

To me everything seems consistent, ... and in line with the main turrets orientation showed on the photo NH 69727.

Opinions welcome ...

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:37 am

Hello everybody,

and here it is in a graphic format how my calculations are translated into a battle map with the related bearings check :

Demo_11_NH_69727.jpg
Demo_11_NH_69727.jpg (77.79 KiB) Viewed 519 times

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2757
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:43 am

Hi Antonio,
very interesting discussion, I hope someone will be interested in contributing...

I have always adopted your reconstruction, that is by far the most reliable available. I just still have some doubts about the period of time after 6:05 (the less interesting anyway) as I see a minor problem with photos like NH69729, showing Bismarck starboard side (even if very slightly) while the track proposed in your reconstruction should show the port side, at least at that probable distance, before PG cross the Bismarck future course.

h69729.jpg
h69729.jpg (72.44 KiB) Viewed 463 times

I guess this may need a minor adjustment to fix, but as the previous part of the battlemap is proven correct and fully supported by available photos and film, I do think this topic is really the only one that can take to a step forward in the battlemap reconstruction. :clap:

First question is: what is the distance of Bismarck from PG in this photo ?


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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:28 am

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

before going into the very interesting analysis you are proposing, I need to fix the starting point the best we can, … and the photo NH 69727 timing contained into the film, … and I am doing it with this small demo :

Bearings_demo_03.jpg
Bearings_demo_03.jpg (51.93 KiB) Viewed 456 times

PG_film_key_pics_comparison_01.jpg
PG_film_key_pics_comparison_01.jpg (53.11 KiB) Viewed 456 times
@ Herr Nillson,

how much do you think the speed of the film needs to be " adjusted " ?

Based on that we can put in perfect synch the PG first turn with her battle map, ... the last shells from PoW landing time, ... and the photo NH 69727 at the start of the Bismarck second turn.

The above image should be enough to demosntrate that for a good minute the Bismarck was sailing in parallel ( no changes ) with the Prinz Eugen on course 270° due west, ... and after she turned back on course 220° most likely.


Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:16 pm

Hello Antonio,

Instead of doing what you want to do, why don't you answer Alberto's pertinent question?
First question is: what is the distance of Bismarck from PG in this photo ?
Back in 2006 some kind of agreement (much more common back then) said Bismarck was between 500 and 700m away.


Then since he is quite interested in handrails, he might ask "What course is Prinz Eugen sailing in this photo, given that the handrails if parallel to PG's hull axis are at more than 90 degrees to Bismarck's course?"


And if we revisit 2006 and that thread called simply NH 69729 :shock: you will tell us:
But the credit to have resolved this ' enigma ' goes to Wadinga that clearly addressed the issue

Now I think we all can say with a very high confidence level that Nh 69729 was surely taken midship as I said , between the catapult and the crane.

It shows Bismarck coming 90 degrees to Prinz Eugen beam on starboard side.
Prinz Eugen was sailing from right to left on course 270 degrees.

But then, unlike 2006 when you were allowed to get away with such things, he might say but PG can't be steering 270T, because that would mean Bismarck was steering 180T, and your plans have never and will never show her steering south. Then someone will say, but supposing Bismarck is sailing about 220T, firing on her port beam at PoW, that means Prinz Eugen is sailing 310T, and the only time this course is represented on the Gefechtsskizze is 06:17, long after the Bismarck has stopped firing. Then they might say, since she is firing here, this photographic evidence shows the times on the Gefechtsskizze are "useless and worthless".

Alberto, you are not supposed to ask awkward questions :negative: :
before going into the very interesting analysis you are proposing, I need to fix the starting point the best we can,

means I need to distract everybody far away from the glaring problems with my maps, which are distorted by honouring the Gefechtskizze.


The thread is called "after the second turn". When according to the Gefechtsskizze is that?

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2757
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:53 pm

Hello everybody,

Q.E.D.
Antonio Bonomi wrote:
"This guy does not provide anymore any value add to this historical discussion and is only " trolling " the forum with his clear and declared " agenda " in order to try to " mud the water " and counter in any possible way, ... either fair and also very unfairly, provocative and offensive sometimes, ... the all reasoning and evidence provided.

I am sorry for you Bill, but Alberto Virtuani was absolutely right when he wrote you above :
Everybody would like... I have asked the same several times, we are waiting since months for a proposal coming from this guy.
I hope your request will have a better success, forcing him to draw a proposed Bismarck course himself.
Mr.Wadinga is just denying evidences, sometimes proposing the usage of old (mathematically and geometrically proven) wrong battlemaps or insisting on "captions" :shock: ; he is however totally unable to show his own alternative German ships course, respecting the evidences (like the PG battlemap and the PoW salvo plot), because his denial is only motivated by his agenda to avoid to admit that the film was taken after 6:03, thus questioning the Bismarck RoF vs.PoW (and consequently the conclusions of Adm.Santarini and myself regarding PoW gunnery performance). :kaput:

Instead of answering points and questions from myself, from Mr.Bonomi and from Mr.Jurens, Mr.Wadinga cowardly runs away and tries to jump on another thread, where we discuss about the refinement of the final part of the battlemap, after the second turn, vomiting another nonsense about handrails (I remind to everybody that in his high naval knowledge the handrails are always parallel to the horizon viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6834&hilit=horizon&start=255#p80170).... :kaput:

Of course he carefully avoids to acknowledge first the preliminary precise demonstration of Antonio viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81184#p81065, with the frames of the film above.... because this has just destroyed once forever (and once again) his low game(s)...

What about his crazy theory of Bismarck turn away at 5:55 ? R.I.P. :lol:

Disgusting trolling... and this is a very nice definition for such a sneaking behavior.


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: 1599
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:54 am

Hello Alberto,

Sadly somebody decided that other thread had run its course... :( ………...but then luckily Antonio started this one. :D

Have you forgotten your own quite reasonable question? Don't you wonder why Antonio won't answer it? Even you have noticed that his timetable and the map don't work here , just as they ignore evidence before 06:00:
I just still have some doubts about the period of time after 6:05 (the less interesting anyway) as I see a minor problem


Bad Alberto, back in your kennel and no supper until you learn not to voice any doubts. Master is always right. Still I'm sure Antonio will get round to answering your awkward question, unless he diverts you with a lot of phoney baloney about film speeds. Look at the map. Prinz Eugen is supposed to cut across the flagship's bows at 06:14 and then turn 90 degrees to starboard and cut back at 06:15? Is that likely? Would grumpy Gunter stand for such behaviour? Luckily he's dead and can't comment when Brinkmann submits his account which Antonio used to admit was decidedly shaky. March 2014

the Prinz Eugen "Gefechtsskizze" submitted by Prinz Eugen ( Kpt Brinkmann ) to Vize-Adm Hubert Schmundt has been cause of a lot of troubles for Kpt H. Brinkmann.

Hans Henning von Schulz on 2009 confirmed it to me during the interview I had with him in Salzburg for several hours, same did Otto Schlenzka ( PG A/A gunnery port side ) a year before in Kiel.

Von Schulz was the responsible designed by Brinkmann to respond to all Schmundt request as well as re-constructing the Bismarck war diary.

Schmundt declared the Prinz Eugen " Gefechtsskizze " useless and wortheless to measure Prinz Eugen versus enemy distance on his own letter of June 16th, 1941

and
Schmundt told Brinkmann to use Jasper ( computing station ) available data, that is why I use them as well as reference and I do not give much importance to the " Gefechtsskizze " distances, while I know also that Reimann map distances were intentionally drew over stated for Schmundt.
What Jasper available data?

All the best

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

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 814
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Byron Angel » Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:05 am

I look forward to any sort of intelligibly reasoned response to the uncertainties and logical inconsistencies pointed out by Wadinga.

First western university after the Dark Ages - University of Bologna (founded 1088). Hope springs eternal.

B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2757
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:39 am

Hello everybody,

I look forward to any sort of intelligibly reasoned response to the irrefutable demonstration done by Antonio regarding the film frames viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81184#p81065, BEFORE discussing the minor adjustments that may possibly be done to the final part of the battle tracks (or just to the timing of the photos :wink: ).

Mr.Wadinga, finally and definitely defeated re.his crazy theory of Bismarck turn away before Hood explosion :shock: by all competent people writing here and shamefully unable to substantiate his NONSENSE, despite kindly requested by someone who apparently didn't know yet his ignorance and attitude (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=255#p81141 :lol: ) has just moved trolling here now (while his co-deniers try again to support him without providing any value). :kaput: .

Follow Antonio reasoning, working with him, (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81187#p81065) and I'm sure ALL questions will be answered (with Bismarck course precisely determined between 220°, 200° or 180° between :06 and 6:09, with very minor adjustment anyway to the overall battlemap (regarding a moment after 6:06, when the "battle" was actually already well over, being PoW silent and sailing away since a while, with just a waste of German ammunition, ended by Lutjens at 6:09).
Just keep asking irrelevant and mocking questions (mixing ignorantly handrails, captions, Schmundt comments, old posts, etc.) and you will get NOTHING at all, as IMO Antonio is clearly fed up of this denial attitude when confronted to his work and his request for cooperation.


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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:13 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

many thanks for your summary and wrap up, ... I fully agree with your above statements, ... :clap:

@ All,

in order to analyze more carefully the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen tracks, I have divided for this exercise the track in 4 sections, based on the Prinz Eugen original track.

1) We should be all set and in agreement about the 1st ( first ) section between 05:55 and 06:03 and 30 seconds were both ships were sailing a course of 220° in line of battle ( Keel line - Kiellinie ).

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=255#p81145

Section duration of around 8 minutes and 30 seconds.

2) Similarly there should be no more doubts about the 2nd ( second ) section between 06:03 and 30 seconds and soon after 06:05 that is visible on the PG film, when both ships having turned to starboard from a course 220° to a course 270° west, after around a minute ( more or less ) were turning back to port, ... so the second turn they made.
Here we need to agree about the PG film more correct speed to be associated to the Prinz Eugen original track reference on her battle map and the related timing.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81187#p81065

Section duration of around 2 minutes.

I have asked Herr Nilsson opinion about it since he was concerned time ago about that film speed, ... so, lets wait for his response about it.

3) After having reached an agreement about it we can move into the 3rd ( third ) section from soon after 06:05 and 30 seconds more or less, ... until the German warships cease fire at 06:09 referencing to the Prinz Eugen original track as obvious.

Section duration of around 3 minutes and 30 seconds.

4) The 4th ( fourth ) section will be from 06:09 until 06:21 once again referencing the Prinz Eugen original track.

Section duration of around 12 minutes.

Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )

Bill Jurens
Supporter
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens » Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:23 pm

I find statements such as:

"Mr.Wadinga, finally and definitely defeated re.his crazy theory of Bismarck turn away before Hood explosion :shock: by all competent people writing here and shamefully unable to substantiate his NONSENSE, despite kindly requested by someone who apparently didn't know yet his ignorance and attitude (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=255#p81141 :lol: ) has just moved trolling here now (while his co-deniers try again to support him without providing any value). :kaput: . "

both incoherent, and at least from my viewpoint, moderately offensive. Filtering out the the wheat of the author's thoughts from the chaff of unnecessary adjectives and descriptors, e.g. "'competent', 'shamefully', 'NONSENSE', 'ignorance', 'trolling', 'attitude', 'co-deniers', etc. seems to leave something like:

"Wadinga has now commenced commenting upon this thread." Which, polemic aside, would seem to represent both a trivial and self-evident observation.

My perception is that Mr. Virtuani has, deliberately or accidentally, both misinterpreted and misused my original comment, converting a simple question into some sort of aggressive polemic. (If the misinterpretation was accidental, I must reasonably bear some responsibility. As the old saying goes, 'When the student fails, the teacher fails too...".)

I might re-iterate my understanding of recent developments. At some point Mr. Virtuani, or perhaps someone else, had made reference in an earlier post to some 'crazy turn' -- i believe that's the phrase that was used -- suggested by (Mr.?) Wadinga. (The addition of the word 'crazy' to the phrase incidentally adds nothing to the description, and might well have more productively omitted.)

I asked for clarification on this from Wadinga so that he could confirm that he had suggested that such a turn occurred, perhaps provide a more coherent description of this alleged turn, and -- indeed if he had indeed proposed such a turn explain the evidence upon which his allegations were based.

After a short and reasonable delay, Wadinga replied, declining to comment further insofar -- if I have read him correctly -- that the situation was sufficiently ill-defined so as to render any detailed response essentially meaningless, i.e. that any response at all could only serve to dignify an argument which was incapable of being debated in any sort of coherent way at all. This is not what I had hoped for, but for what it is worth, I do feel this is a perfectly reasonable and responsible response. Merely participating in a lengthy discussion regarding -- for example -- the expression on Columbus' face as he beached in the New World, presupposes that sufficient evidence survives to permit rational discussion in the first place.

I am concerned that my commentaries are being misrepresented, for whatever reasons, as representing arguments for (or against) any particular set of viewpoints. When I find a particular statement to be, in my opinion, in error, I will say so. Some might have noticed that I am much less likely to offer support in favor of any opinion insofar as certainly identifying errors is a lot easier than certainly establishing truths. In that regard, it might be said that I practice a 'subtractive' model of analysis where, beginning with a certain database, one removes all conflicting or problematical information, leaving only a (perhaps much smaller than might be desired) core of truth. Others tend to practice what might best be called an 'additive' model of analysis where, given the same initial database, the emphasis is more upon extrapolation, i.e. adding new facts to what is already supposedly known. In that regard, I tend to be more analytic than synthetic. (I apologize to experts in epistemology who are, at this point, entitled to cringe at my simplifications, which are presented in what might best be described as ultra-informal jargon.)

Although I do have my opinions, I am NOT taking sides in this particular set of discussions, and have no particular axe to grind, except perhaps to suggest to all involved that it is both preferable and productive to employ reasonable historical methodology. I am not an historian myself, but am fortunate to hold two professors of history as personal friends. They have been, through both formal and informal discussions, extremely useful in helping me, over the years, to get some lay-level grasp on how proper history is created and written. Little to none of this involves the ad-hominem argumentative model.

I might re-iterate that those that continue to infest this forum with completely unnecessary invective and slander not only impede rational discussion amongst surviving participants, but also tend to degrade, rather than enhance, the perceived validity of their arguments.

Bill Jurens.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga » Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Hello Alberto,

Leaving aside your invective, you have said:
I'm sure ALL questions will be answered (with Bismarck course precisely determined between 220°, 200° or 180° between :06 and 6:09,

I thought one of the certainties was that Bismarck steered 220T and now you are allowing for the irrefutable track to be adjusted to 180T? A minor change? It would be evidence that Bismarck chased after PoW against Lutjens' wishes.


This thread is called "after the second turn" and when we look at Antonio's map we see Prinz Eugen crossing Bismarck's bows at about 50 degrees course difference, ie not 90 degrees, (as the photos "irrefutably show") only a few hundred yards in front of her. You even asked the distance yourself, remember? Extremely dangerous behaviour but justified because there is GHG torpedo alarm, and an emergency turn with risk of collision is justified. But does the flagship react to this new emergency, recorded by a few incoherent fragments on the Gefechtsskizze? No she sails on, straight as a die, unflinching, between 06:06 and 06:13. This example must emulated by Brinkmann because he apparently steadies on 220T after less than a minute, whereupon, to his astonishment, the flagship sailing by now very close on his port quarter, turns towards him. He turns too, or is it because of yet another spurious GHG alarm, but Bismarck has turned inside of him and is now very close indeed on his starboard quarter so he keeps on turning all the way to about 310T, crossing Lindemann's bows for a third time, at point blank distance.


As a former mariner you know this is all twaddle. No competent ship handlers would take such chances whilst travelling at 28 kts. Especially since if the timing on the Gefechtsskizze were correct and the battle had been over for some time, such risks were completely unnecessary.


Have the courage of your convictions and get Antonio to rub out this whole section of Bismarck's track which is clearly completely wrong.

All the best

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

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by northcape » Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:47 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:39 am


Follow Antonio reasoning, working with him, (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&p=81187#p81065) and I'm sure ALL questions will be answered (with Bismarck course precisely determined between 220°, 200° or 180° between :06 and 6:09, with very minor adjustment anyway to the overall battlemap (regarding a moment after 6:06, when the "battle" was actually already well over, being PoW silent and sailing away since a while, with just a waste of German ammunition, ended by Lutjens at 6:09).
This rambling is completely incomprehensible. What should the course be now? 220, 200, 180, or anything in-between? If it is something in-between, what does "precisely" mean then? How do you quantify "precisely"?
The rest also reads like a Google-translation from some Russian spam email, the information content in your postings is zero. This is the only thing which is irrefutable.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2757
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:57 pm

Bill Jurens wrote: "At some point Mr. Virtuani, or perhaps someone else, had made reference in an earlier post to some 'crazy turn' -- i believe that's the phrase that was used -- suggested by (Mr.?) Wadinga....I asked for clarification on this from Wadinga so that he could confirm that he had suggested that such a turn occurred, perhaps provide a more coherent description of this alleged turn, and -- indeed if he had indeed proposed such a turn explain the evidence upon which his allegations were based.
After a short and reasonable delay, Wadinga replied, declining to comment further insofar -- if I have read him correctly -- that the situation was sufficiently ill-defined so as to render any detailed response essentially meaningless, i.e. that any response at all could only serve to dignify an argument which was incapable of being debated in any sort of coherent way at all. This is not what I had hoped for, but for what it is worth, I do feel this is a perfectly reasonable and responsible response"
Hi Mr.Jurens,
ignoring your free "good manners lesson", of which I thank you anyway, you have asked a question to Mr. Wadinga (as we had done since months... :think: ) and after a long delay (this guy usually vomits his nonsense daily, at least) you got no answer, or at least no explanation regarding the crazy (yes, it was me and I repeat: crazy) theory of a turn away before Hood explosion, no supporting evidence, no proposed alternative track, following the usual attitude of this denier, only interested in defending his beloved, dead and buried Kennedy's "fairy-tale".

You are free to consider this behavior as a "reasonable and legitimate" response, if you like it, but I'm free to say that actually it is not an answer. Just the usual trolling way of running away when without any argument, without admitting his errors.



Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "I thought one of the certainties was that Bismarck steered 220T and now you are allowing for the irrefutable track to be adjusted to 180T? A minor change?"
I have no certainties after 6:06 as unfortunately we don't have an irrefutable (from PoW salvo plot) range closure, fixing Bismarck course at around 220° (as Mr.Wadinga had difficulties to accept), but anyway YES, it is a VERY minor change, in which I'm interested, but that will not affect to the battle reconstruction, as after 6:06 the battle was actually OVER.

Antonio opened this thread himself to discuss a possible refinement of his track after the precise reconstruction of the "actual" battle from 5:52 till 6:05. There is no preconceived view from his nor my side, but I would like to hear from Mr.Wadinga an explanation why NH69729 should show Bismarck cutting PG course at 90° :?: . Based on what exactly :?: Let's see if Mr.Wadinga is now able to analyse a photo....

However, Mr.Wadinga hidden agenda is to be able to question the WHOLE battlemap, despite his crazy theory has been defeated without a single hope of resurrection, as he is unable himself to present his alternative or even some supporting evidence as requested (excluding captions and old wrong maps :lol: ).

I see that other trolls (upset by their defeat about the reconstruction of the battle from 5:52 till 6:05) are joining here as well, but I will not comment on their nonsense, because they are unable to provide any added value to the discussion, therefore I see no value answering them as well.


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