Naval History Forums

Hello All, Also a very even-handed synopsis, given that Paul is not of the "Prosecution Persuasion". This was Antonio's position back in January, What has changed? Antonio’s post of January 10th this year compared with recent observations makes it clear he has not recognised or accepted fu...

All, It seems to me the person filling in the log records what the OOW says. If he says "one point five miles" you write down 1.5 miles. If he says "one and a half miles" you write the one and the fraction. It is ridiculous to suggest it means between 1 and 5 miles, firstly it wo...

Antonio and Byron, This is not the place to debate other aspects of W-W's career. Sometimes the people who annoy their superiors in peace are the best people to have in war. Putting W-W in charge of the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940 where he led from the front, getting sunk in the process, suggests oth...

Hi Alberto, Sorry if you are getting a little piqued when I point out all the errors in Antonio's "error free"map, (maybe not all, I'm sure there are others left to find and he will make more) but then if you are putting together something to destroy a decorated officer's reputation, you m...

Hi Duncan, You seem sceptical enough already but, I would suggest you do not incorporate Do not forget you have to place Norfolk at 18° degrees True from PoW at 05.35 (ref PoW plan 4 ), ... and must have Suffolk on 320° True at 05.41, As there is no provenance for these details. Antonio has had plen...

Hi Alberto,

Perfect: Hood course 280 minus angle of inclination 50 = 230 line of sight from Norfolk on course 270 = 40 degrees on port bow.

(You do know what inclination means, don't you?)


All the best

wadinga

Hi Alberto, I guess you guess wrong :D even when you quote the First Enquiry- when W-W didn't "have the track charts with him" and gave a guess. Should he have said "we didn't measure the range to Hood so I can't give an answer."? he said NORFOLK was fine on the starboard quarter...

Hello Byron, Thank you for returning the debate to the Plot, and spatial matters instead of a lot of pointless guessing about what people should have been able to see, versus what they said they saw. Antonio may be abandoning his dedication to Diagram B which was the former "proof" for mos...

Hello Antonio, I must admit i didn't understand much of that last post. Do you agree Diagram B is an inaccurate representation or not? :? Which do you like best your new diagram or Diagram B you have clung to for so long? I also didn't understand with his well drawn Hood track separated from PoW by ...

Hello Antonio, You have Norfolk's Log. Is there an entry for 05:16 saying "Battlecruiser Force in sight, bearing so and so"? I imagine not :cool: Quoting W-W's narrative to me, written after the event and retrospectively identifying the smoke's origin is just a silly bluff. :wink: In fact,...

Hello Dave, Can we at least agree that when they say The range was forty six kilometers (50,400 yards, 24.8 miles)... what they mean is given the exponential increase in rangefinder inaccuracy as range increases, it was about 24.8 miles? Or 26 or some other number? There were apparently, no sighting...

Hi All, Objection your Honour, The witmess may have said he saw smoke at 05:16, but the prosecution is misleading the Court to say he knew this was the Battlecruiser Force. Move that this statement He saw the battlecruiser force at 05.16, so it was since 21 minutes before that Wake-Walker was aware ...

Hello Antonio, I am completely confused by your latest map "Aug 20" where you are presenting all manner of shaky information in this latest "proof". Point "A" is positioned using the spurious Point A is 05.35 bearing 18° from PoW ref. Plan 4 There is no provenance for e...

Gentlemen, This thread is called the Plot for a reason, it is supposed to concentrate on the chart and the information it contains. Here is a charting question: Hello Antonio, I've asked you this question before but somehow it never gets answered .............. You believe One of the few correct inf...

All,
Corrrection 220 not 270 but it is immaterial. The closure rate is impossible.

All the best

wadinga