Naval History Forums

Hello everybody, Byron Angel wrote: "It appears in the photo under discussion that, while Bismarck is engaging a target off her port bow with three of her main battery turrets, turret Anton remains trained fore and aft" Both turrets are trained in exactly the same way (see their shapes): n...

Hello everybody, Mr.Wadinga found an apparent Antonio's "contradiction" ... from... 2006 :clap: .... No need to go back to 2006 to find his contradictions/errors (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526#p82783, http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728...

Hello everybody, Wadinga wrote: "Once again inverted faulty logic where the evidence clearly available in the photographs, and from which conjectural tracks might be deduced, is to be ignored." No, just (once again) absolutely unfounded conclusions: Mr. Wadinga assumes the photos show a 90...

...and to the unsolicited and unwelcome comments (bringing no value whatsoever to the discussion of the topic) too....

Bye, Alberto

Hello everybody, Wadinga wrote: "90 degree crossing shown in the photographs" unproven, just a speculation (or, at best, a very remote option among others).... with no tracks presented to support such a statement ..... &: "There was little point in further discussion. " There...

Hello everybody, Bill Jurens wrote: "Northcape's reply "on my behalf" summarizes my position(s) so well that I can do little or nothing to improve it." unfortunately, "Northcape's reply" has already been "replied" (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?...

Hello everybody, Wadinga wrote: "Thank you for this photograph which neatly proves my point." Instead of admitting he was simply wrong, Mr.Wadinga insists. In the "flash effect photo": he can determine neither the exact orientation not the exact elevation of the centre (not the a...

Hello everybody, as noted by Northcape the question was to Mr.Jurens.... Northcape wrote: " all reconstructions are equally inaccurate." Respectfully, I totally disagree with this statement, because Mr.Jurens has published a battlemap that "comes" to exactly the same conclusions ...

Thanks again, Mr.Jurens, for your answer, however, you have not yet answered the question n.2 (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&p=85197#p85189), therefore re-phrased here below: a) Based on your own battlemap (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/download/file.php?id=3593) a...

Excuses accepted (twice ) !

Bye, Alberto

Hello everybody, thanks to MrJurens for the answers to my 3 questions. My observations: 1) Not being sure of the authenticity of a photo, a disclaimer should have been added (or at least a general disclaimer for all the battle images should have been written somewhere). The caption at pag. 228 is un...

Hello everybody, Wadinga wrote: "If they are horizontal their elevation is zero." Wrong (i will use again a photo I have used already in the past, trying to explain you (without success....) that you cannot get to simple conclusion without having all the elements)... In this photo the rail...

Hello everybody, Wadinga wrote (quoting me) : " " A good step forward" would be to admit the barrels are parallel to the horizon" I easily admit they are almost (around 3°difference are present, to be very precise). However, you don't know their elevation ....because you cannot k...

Hello everybody, Wadinga wrote: "I have changed my thread title to include NH69729" A very good bypass, my congratulations. :clap: Therefore, before moving to the NH69729, we can conclude that the NH69730 can perfectly match Antonio's reconstruction (here together with Mr.Jurens one http:/...

Hello everybody, Wadinga wrote (quoting me): "" Are you finally able now to understand when the photo was taken according to the only possible reconstruction? " Of course not, since the relative orientations of the two ships are completely incompatible with these conjectural tracks&qu...