Bismarck firing procedures at DS

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

we have long discusssed in the past about that visual effect.

We have compared it with the previous 2 PoW 14 inch splashes and one can easily notice the evident difference between them.

If we assume it can be a third splash, ... which is very hard to sustain, ... one needs to demonstrate that the PoW gunnery report is incorrect because of that visual effect, ... and that PoW fired in local control 5 shells ( 2+1+2 ) and not 4 ( 2+1+1 ) as declared.

Pretty hard to do it, ... given what we have ... but you can always try to find evidence in that direction.

For sure this is at least more serious and interesting than the latest Wadinga theory of Bismarck having turned away at 05:55 .... refused by both Schmalenbach and the Baron as soon as they had the PG battle map available ( fact ) ... and will provide additional credits to the HMS Prince of Wales Y turret Royal Marines ...

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

.

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Herr Nilsson:
Hi Marc,
welcome back ! I'm very happy to see that (once again) you are back despite saying that you resigned...... We were all missing you !

Wadinga wrote: "The ships are diverting away from each other after Bismarck's early turn away, just after 05:55 with PG remaining on course. "

Hi Sean,
therefore we have to assume that this is your adopted battlemap (Scnhmalenbach 1971). Good luck for trying to fit the evidences to it. When was Hood sunk ? How could Brinkmann ask to launch torpedoes as PG was retreating ? How could BS hit with such precision both Hood and PoW while turning to port ? Just few examples of how your adopted battlemap is totally incorrect (your "witnesses", Schmalenbach and the Baron, realized it, as well as everybody else, except you)

you wrote: "Antonio's map shows PoW turning hard 90 degrees to starboard in the minute it takes to fire the LC salvoes"

Could you please show this 90° hard turn posting it ? PoW gunnery plot does not.
In any case, if you want to substantiate your theory, please tell me why by chance we only see 1 splash out of 2 or 4 (Hood semi-salvos) and we don't see any salvo from PoW (3 to 5 theoretical shells) around BS while PoW was hitting her. Where are PoW salvos in the film ? Are they by chance lost by the camera as well as the other shells from Hood ???......
Come on, let's try to be serious here. The 2 (or 3 even if we account for the very different shape we see in the film after the second one as per Paul's post) shells in 2 minutes around the German ships cannot account for the BC1 full armament firing and hitting......

It's your problem if you want to go on diminishing Aylwin performance in the desperate attempt to demonstrate that PoW gunnery was poor enough to justify the disengagement decision of his commanding officer, while it is clear now that it was quite good both under central direction, as already demonstrated, and in local control too..... a very annoying evidence against your agenda.



@Paul Cadogan and Dunmunro:

Hi Paul, Duncan,
yes, I see the (quite different...) shape in the film, but as I said above to Sean, and as Antonio already stated, it can only demonstrate that the PoW GAR is wrong and the Y turret fired 5 shots instead of 4 in LC.
I hope you don't intend to support the crazy theory of Sean, with Bismarck turning away at 5:55, the film accounting for minutes after 5:56, 5:57 , the shells being Hood shells directed on PG (while we see them falling closer to BS) and not showing any shell from PoW semi-salvos (15+ shells) falling around Bismarck.
Do you ?
I would really appreciate your clear answer here.

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

@Herr Nilsson:
Hi Marc,
welcome back ! I'm very happy to see that (once again) you are back despite saying that you resigned...... We were all missing you !

Hello Alberto,

I've resigned. I just knew what Antonio would write and quoted him. It was intended as a service for Paul. Unfortunately Antonio answered faster than I could quote him. So actually it was a kind of double post from Antonio and I deleted the quote.

However, it's quite interesting that rather official reports are considered to be wrong if facts do not support Antonio's theory.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nilsson wrote: "it's quite interesting that rather official reports are considered to be wrong if facts do not support Antonio's theory"

Hi Marc,
I cannot answer for Antonio, but IMHO the shape in the film cannot be a shell splash, too different from the other ones (thin and tall, not spreading and falling down like the others)...... For me the PoW GAR is correct, but IF the shape is demonstrated to be a shell splash (and it is far from being) we have to admit it is not.

I'm sure you agree that the film cannot account for the timing when the full BC1 armament was firing and hitting (just before Hood was sunk), as we don't see enough splashes around BS. Don't you ?

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

Alberto, Ok, just for you my friend even it's wasted time:
What we can see is spray that's still in the air. We can also see that the water is still troubled and the background remains blurred for a while. So if it's not a splash it has to be Moby Dick.

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Herr Nilsson:
Hi Marc,
thanks, however I see a very tall shape (much taller than the previous 2 shots, going up to the end of the frame), very thin while the other two are "fat" when they fall down, and I honestly cannot see clearly any troubled water. I would guess it is a downpour of rain or another atmospheric phenomenon..... However I'm open to accept another shot based on a clear evidence and analysis of the film from more competent people than me.

Could you be so kind to please answer my last question as I'm reluctant to accept that you support the BS turn away theory at 5:55? : I'm sure you agree that the film cannot account for the timing when the full BC1 armament was firing and hitting (just before Hood was sunk), as we don't see enough splashes around BS. Don't you ?

Bye. Alberto

[paulcadogan]

Do you ?
I would really appreciate your clear answer here.

Actually, I was thinking it might address Cag's concerns.

I'm afraid the track charts showing Bismarck inclined away from the British ships from 0555 - 0600 are confounded by the trajectory of the shells from PoW that hit her. If she had been so inclined the bow hit would have exited to starboard far forward of where it entered on the port side (and may even have exploded?) damaging more compartments- it didn't. The underwater hit amidships would also have been angled forward and the hit on the bow of the starboard service boat - a hit that definitely required Bismarck to be inclined somewhat towards PoW - would have been pretty much impossible! Sorry Wadinga....

Paul

[Alberto Virtuani]

Thanks Paul for your clear (and irrefutable) answer here.

Bye, Alberto

[paulcadogan]

And on top of that - the range would not have dropped so precipitously from about 22,000 yards at 0555 to 16,500 at 0600!

[Cag]

Hi All,

Thanks Paul I appreciate any help at any time!

Antonio thanks too, I did quantify my post by saying that I'm happy to accept the wisdom of those more experienced contributors as far as the local control sequence goes. The questions I ask are merely because something does 'bug me' and I ask in hope that someone is kind enough to help and answer, and I hope that in some way I may do the same for others.

Very nice to hear from Herr Nilsson and I apologise for my bad German! If only Blake's inquiry had been able to take witness testimony from Moby Dick, what a story that whale would tell!

Best wishes
Cag.

[Herr Nilsson]

@Herr Nilsson:
Hi Marc,
thanks, however I see a very tall shape (much taller than the previous 2 shots, going up to the end of the frame), very thin while the other two are "fat" when they fall down, and I honestly cannot see clearly any troubled water. I would guess it is a downpour of rain or another atmospheric phenomenon..... However I'm open to accept another shot based on a clear evidence and analysis of the film from more competent people than me.

Could you be so kind to please answer my last question as I'm reluctant to accept that you support the BS turn away theory at 5:55? : I'm sure you agree that the film cannot account for the timing when the full BC1 armament was firing and hitting (just before Hood was sunk), as we don't see enough splashes around BS. Don't you ?

Bye. Alberto

Alberto,

just for your eyes only and for the last time answering. The more I know about this battle the more I realize I know nothing at all. Knowledge has the totally contrary effect on me than on Antonio. The problem with Antonio's theory is that everything is arranged so artfully by now that it collapses like a house of cards if one knows which card is to pull out. I know at least two and the possible third splash is not one of them. The splash problem can be easily solved. You just have to give up something else that's taken for common knowledge (at least in this forum). Forget everything you think you know for sure for a while, maybe you will find out.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Marc,
I do appreciate your answer and I try to keep my mind open. I'm perhaps too stupid, but I don't see any other splash except the 2 (local control ones). Being so stupid, I can only say that you can be right but you don't provide enough info, while Antonio does in his full explanations.

However, I would appreciate at least a direct answer to my question (as Paul Cadogan already did): " I'm sure you agree that the film cannot account for the timing when the full BC1 armament was firing and hitting (just before Hood was sunk), as we don't see enough splashes around BS. Don't you ?"

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

Alberto,

I don't want to be part of the discussion anymore an therefore my opinion is irrelevant.

[Cag]

Hi All,

Thank you Paul yes I believe I see the splash, but my eyes could be playing tricks on me!

However I'm not sure what this means, we know that PoW salvo 17 was of at most 3 rounds A3, B1 and Y1. And salvo 18 was at most 4 guns, A2, A4, B2 and Y4. The only two shot salvos were at the beginning of the battle and at the end from PoW. Hood fired two shot salvos but the consensus of opinion is that she fired at Prinz Eugen.

More questions!
Best wishes
Cag.