PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:59 pm

.

Nothing posted by A & A has changed my mind over my opinion that they over claim the accuracy of what is possible from the existing information. The information is patchy and recorded as and when with non digital timings.

They do not convince on gunnery information, and their claims re. the mysterious (and supposedly detailed) Vickers report have fallen flat as it seemingly does not cover interlocks.



.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:44 pm

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote(viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=495#p82851): "Between now and then, participants will be permitted to make one -- but only one -- additional 'summary' post "
What "I find is particularly disturbing" (to use the original wording viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=495#p82859) is the fact that a forum member is posting twice, with the excuse of debating about "process", in clear violation of the (easy ) rule of "one and one only post" above....

Also "what I find is particularly disturbing" is that he keeps posting not a summary about the very topic of this thread, but just complains about his own dissatisfaction for the outcome of the discussions since 2013 (when the new evidences started to surface and could not be countered without spectacular but not credible fantasy exercises)..

This "obliges" me to answer to points that should have never been mentioned in a "summary"....

"The observations by the other knowledgeable people on the manifest shortcomings of the interesting take are shouted down with a blizzard of personal insults including Hooligan and claims that anybody who does not accept it is stupid, ill-educated and believes in fairy stories"
I would kindly remind to everybody that the tones have been very well-educated and friendly until Antonio Bonomi started linking his (until then) well accepted 2005 reconstruction to the "regrettable aftermath" (CM menace, cover-up and final celebrations). Immediately he got plainly insulted (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830&p=54913&hilit= ... lme#p54913), without any excuse up to now.

Starting from this point in time, we were called "conspiracy theorists"(viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495&p=60879&hilit= ... ist#p60879), "well concocted zigurrat of supporsitions tellers" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=77855&hilit= ... rat#p77855), "flat-earth theorists"(viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82619&hilit= ... rth#p82619), fallen "bridge builders"( see viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&hilit=Genova&start=675#p80371), "stupid" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=65547&hilit=stupid#p65542) or told we were not able to read an English text (e.g. the use of past perfect (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&hilit=past+per ... 375#p76143) or the meaning of "conduct" in military environment (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=76803&hilit=conduct#p76803) are blatant examples), despite having provided any kind of solid proof supporting our statements.
Wadinga wrote: "We were informed about a potential vote. Has it happened? That should decide it."
No, the vote (that was never about Leach's timidity, as a forum member has tried to say...) could possibly indicate the forum majority position, not telling us who is right. The historical truth is (fortunately) not depending on the number of people accepting it. It is in the official documents presented and in the battle reconstruction complete and consistent work done vs. the "indeterminateness" (possibly majoritarian) party.






Finally, coming to the summary of this specific thread topic (as here we are not discussing the whole "story"...), not a single figure, out of the following ones (especially the 1) to 4) points that do not depend on "luck", are based on data available to everyone here and do not need any "digital timing" to be calculated), could be definitely countered in these past days with any valid argumentation (attempts have been counter-questioned and... left without answer/alternative by the opponents).

BS vs PoW gunnery performances.jpg
BS vs PoW gunnery performances.jpg (63.32 KiB) Viewed 411 times

These figures complement and confirm Adm.Santarini published gunnery work conclusions, 1) pointing to the fact that PoW gunnery was indeed very good and 2) outlining the reasons why someone refused (and apparently still refuses) to recognize her performances for a very understandable reason (download/file.php?id=3420).


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: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:13 pm

Wandinga wrote:

It would be nice to hear from a somewhat wider selection of readers regarding their overall evaluations of the hypotheses presented my [sic] Mssrs. Bonomi and Virtuani. It is my assumption that their votes would be 'proven' and 'proven', but that's technically just speculation
I do hope this was just a mischievous attempt to provoke "lurkers" into expressing an opinion, rather than a genuine assumption that non-voting equals approval.

No mischievousness involved. I had noticed -- as perhaps others had, too -- that no replies to the informal survey seemed to express anything like strong support for the hypotheses proposed by Mssrs. Bonomi and Virtuani. If my reading is correct -- and I may have missed something -- they did not even participate in the survey, although my assumption was that their votes, if registered, would be 'proven' and 'proven'. leaving two on the 'proven' side rather than (apparently) none or very few.

I was indeed trying to encourage others in support of the Bonomi/Virtuani hypotheses to speak up in formal assertion so that we might be able as a group to determine how many people actually supported their hypotheses. As it appears that nobody, or almost nobody, did speak out on their side, I think it fair to conclude that the general consensus of this forum -- or at least those that were willing to offer a formal opinion on this forum -- was that the B/V hypotheses remained, at best, highly problematical. I would, speaking as a participant and not as moderator, cast my votes on the 'unproven' or at least 'indeterminate' side as well.

In any case, I think most would agree that the B/V hypotheses have received a fair, although somewhat lengthy and argumentative, hearing here, and that their viewpoints have not achieved widespread acceptance.

It is noon here in Winnipeg. As mentioned in my previous memos, in the absence of further new information, i.e. material which does not simply reflect a regurgitation and/or repetition of previously posted evidence, I would, at this point -- subject to the usual moderation of immediately previously posted material -- consider this particular discussion thread closed.

Bill Jurens

Reubs64
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:26 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Reubs64 » Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:46 pm

As a "lurker" I have diligently read all the thread and many others over the years but was totally put off any educated reservations about A&As theory with regard to cowardice, collusion etc. I found it very sad that other clearly well educated and well informed posters were basically bullied off the site because they didn't "toe the line" with regard to the theory proposed by the above men. I found it extremely distasteful that clearly brave men, long passed away, who could not defend themselves, were being vilified in such a way yet when anyone posted any response disagreeing with their assumptions they were flatly beaten down to the extent that instead of this site having a much broader and richer set of posters and opinions the site became basically the A&A show. I could express my own details on a lot of the flaws in their argument but find it utterly pointless after all the previous threads over the years which have never for one instance received any acknowledgement or retraction that maybe these men just might be wrong or at least undignified in their approach and treatment of any other posters who had a different opinion to themselves. I also note that no "silver bullet" was ever produced. I sincerely hope that when other threads are commenced that the site is monitored to encourage new posters with new information and opinions to join in without being hounded off the site with some of the tactics previously allowed. With that in mind may I express the sentiment that Mr Jurens stays as moderator for as long as his free time permits, I greatly admire his knowledge and expertise as I do with many other posters on here too. I was initially drawn to this site by a long ago written article by Mr Bonomi and I used to be a great admirer of his academic skills but gradually noticed in the previous few years that a sort of "God complex " developed whereby anyone who posted anything in the negative of both A,s opinions were never shown any tolerance, just bullied into submission, silence, or leaving the site altogether. So here's hoping for some new posters to freshen things up and being allowed to express their own thoughts and opinions with tolerance and respect.

Algonquin-R17
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:40 pm
Location: Canada

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Algonquin-R17 » Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:21 am

Reubs64 wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:46 pm
As a "lurker" I have diligently read all the thread and many others over the years but was totally put off any educated reservations about A&As theory with regard to cowardice, collusion etc. I found it very sad that other clearly well educated and well informed posters were basically bullied off the site because they didn't "toe the line" with regard to the theory proposed by the above men. I found it extremely distasteful that clearly brave men, long passed away, who could not defend themselves, were being vilified in such a way yet when anyone posted any response disagreeing with their assumptions they were flatly beaten down to the extent that instead of this site having a much broader and richer set of posters and opinions the site became basically the A&A show. I could express my own details on a lot of the flaws in their argument but find it utterly pointless after all the previous threads over the years which have never for one instance received any acknowledgement or retraction that maybe these men just might be wrong or at least undignified in their approach and treatment of any other posters who had a different opinion to themselves. I also note that no "silver bullet" was ever produced. I sincerely hope that when other threads are commenced that the site is monitored to encourage new posters with new information and opinions to join in without being hounded off the site with some of the tactics previously allowed. With that in mind may I express the sentiment that Mr Jurens stays as moderator for as long as his free time permits, I greatly admire his knowledge and expertise as I do with many other posters on here too. I was initially drawn to this site by a long ago written article by Mr Bonomi and I used to be a great admirer of his academic skills but gradually noticed in the previous few years that a sort of "God complex " developed whereby anyone who posted anything in the negative of both A,s opinions were never shown any tolerance, just bullied into submission, silence, or leaving the site altogether. So here's hoping for some new posters to freshen things up and being allowed to express their own thoughts and opinions with tolerance and respect.
I agree completely with Reubs64 and his well written statement.

I too have followed all of these threads extensively for a long time.

One would be very hard pressed to find anyone other than A + A that support their own theory. It would appear that they have failed to convince anyone at all.

That alone speaks volumes.

I have sifted all of the points and counterpoints. German and British eye witness accounts bear a great weight. Determining Bismarck's course by the position of her turrets in a poor quality 78 year old film not so much.

I would like to acknowledge my admiration for dunmunro and Wadinga / Sean for their perseverance in presenting the facts.

Mr. Jurens thank you for calming the waters.

Bob

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

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:27 am

My personal thanks for those who have expressed support for my efforts during the past couple of posts.

Although the previous two posts were technically submitted past the official cutoff time, insofar as the closure was explicitly expressed as being voluntary in nature, because the posts were from individuals which relatively rarely post, and because the content of subsequent posts seemed relatively positive, or at least reasonably constructive in tone, I decided to let them stand.

Mr. Virtuani has expressed dissatisfaction at this decision, and at his request, I would remind posters that this particular thread is technically closed and that further posts should be addressed by beginning a new thread, presumably addressing somewhat different subject matter.

Bill Jurens.

Locked