Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@ Herr Nilsson: you are right about the 2 KTB's (the 5 minutes are in BS reconstructed one), sorry my mistake. :oops:

However, what the instructions you own say about seconds (are they foreseen in the instructions ?) and where should they be put in ?

Thanks, 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: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you are right, the precise definition on how to count the minutes from 05.55 + 5 minutes until 06.00 has been added only on the Bismarck re-constructed KTB you posted above showing the transcription error from 06.00 and 20 seconds from PG KTB ... becoming 06.01 and 20 seconds on 1941 BS re-constructed KTB by Hans Henning von Schultz.

That phrase was very likely based on the precise input of Adm Lutjens radio message, which is another official reference since it stated 06.00 for Hood explosion and NOT 06.01.

Now what you rate being more valid and correct on BS KTB : Adm Lutjens and the mathematic reference written aside or the error on the transcription from PG KTB ?

This is not my timeline, ... it is the event timeline I have only defined based on many evidences, both sides and from the air too, and it is NOT only based on this input.

There are no doubts Hood exploded at 06.00 that morning, ... and nothing will change that given the official evidences available.

Bye Antonio :D
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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Herr Nilsson »

@ alecsandros: No, that's the reconstructed war diary of Bismarck, made by Group North. In the Prinz Eugen war diary the 5 minutes are not mentioned.

@ Alberto:
Nothing. A time is a time is a time. It's always a complete time with hours and minutes not only seconds. Each time has its own paragraph. Corrections can be made, but have to be visible.

The commanding officers are enjoined to remember who is the addressee:

he himself and the headquaters. Form and content are only for this purpose.

Image
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Herr Nilsson: thanks a lot.

When you say "nothing", do you mean there is no instruction at all for seconds ? Sorry but I don't speak German, especially when written in Gothic characters....

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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)
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by alecsandros »

Herr Nilsson wrote:@ alecsandros: No, that's the reconstructed war diary of Bismarck, made by Group North. In the Prinz Eugen war diary the 5 minutes are not mentioned.
It's not that,
It's that it has 2 different "times" written on the same page. one is 6:01:20 and the other "destroyed after 5 minutes battle".

Whoever compiled it made at least 1 error. Which one ?
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
@ Herr Nilsson,

...
Now what you rate being more valid and correct on BS KTB : Adm Lutjens and the mathematic reference written aside or the error on the transcription from PG KTB ?
I dont know.
Antonio Bonomi wrote: This is not my timeline, ... it is the event timeline I have only defined based on many evidences, both sides and from the air too, and it is NOT only based on this input.
Of course it's your timeline. You have defined it, you are interpreting informations.
Antonio Bonomi wrote: There are no doubts Hood exploded at 06.00 that morning, ... and nothing will change that given the official evidences available.
No, you've no doubts. That's something different.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

of course I own my interpretation and definition of that timing based on the official inputs available.

It is based on this analysis I posted time ago on this same thread.

If anybody can do a better job with more precise official inputs and a better evaluation, ... I am open to discuss about it, ... like always.

Bye Antonio :D
Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

some main references :

BRITISH side = 13 inputs

Hood First and Second Board of Inquiry = 06.00
Battle Summary Nr 5 – BR 1736(3) = 06.00 Royal Navy Admiralty 1948
Bob Tilburn = 06.00
Adm Tovey = 06.00 on ADM 234/509
Capt Leach = 06.00 on 3 radio messages and own narrative
LtntCdr Rowell = 06.00
LtntCdr Hunter-Terry = 06.00 the most reliable witness with time written during the battle
Ltnt Esmond Knight = 06.00
Capt Ellis = 05.59 on ADM 234/509
RearAdm Wake-Walker = 05.59 on ADM 234/509
Norfolk War Diary = 06.02
Suffolk War diary = 06.00
PoW War diary = 06.05 ( it is written as Hood hit and sunk )
GERMAN side = 11 inputs

Adm Lutjens = 06.00
Kpt Brinkmann = PoW turned toward PG from 06.01 until 06.02 -> letter to Schmundt
KptLtnt Jasper = time between : > 05.59 and < 06.01 own battle report
F.O. Busch on 1943 book = 05.59 Treffer, than 06.01 explosion and 06.03 sunk
Schmalenbach = 06.00 - as 07.00 (CET) 1971 - > 05.59 and < 06.01 on 1985
PG KTB = 06.00 and 20 seconds
Baron = 06.00 on C.B. 4051 Survivor Interrogation on 1941 - 06.01 book on 1970’s
BS re-constructed war diary = 06.01 and 20 sec ( input wrongly copied from PG KTB )
OKM document 15543 = 06.01 see above
Bundesarchiv RM 7-1448 KM document = 06.01 see above
Adm Reader to Adolf Hitler = 06.01 se above
Gaussian distribution of the 24 above listed inputs :

2 are 05.59 ( Ellis and Wake-Walker : their warships war diary tell 06.00 and 06.02 )
3 are between 05.59 and 06.01 --> we can assume 06.00 average
13 are 06.00
4 are 06.01 (Germans all copied by the same error on BS KTB; should be 06.00 )
1 is 06.02 ( Norfolk war diary; Wake-Walker declared 05.59 )
1 is 06.05 (PoW war diary; all others PoW evidences, witnesses, maps etc … tell 06.00 )
I assume that with the above evidences photo Nh 69724 is properly evaluated being taken at 06.00 and 10/20 seconds, ... given PoW gunnery plot inputs on Salvoes 13th, and 14th, both well visible on the photo as smoke drifting away from HMS Prince of Wales ... and Prinz Eugen official KTB entry with the seconds ( 20 seconds ) detail written after 06.00 on the time column that must be read top down.

If we assume correct PoW gunnery plot than it is : 06.00 and 10 seconds

If we assume correct Prinz Eugen KTB entry than it is : 06.00 and 20 seconds

My personal opinion is that PoW gunnery plot is a bit more precise than Prinz Eugen the KTB entry ... but with due tolerances I think we are pretty close with this evaluation.

Bye Antonio :D
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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Herr Nilsson »

@ Alberto

Exactly. A time is simply a time. If they wanted to correct it, they could have done it. The could have written 06:00:20, but they didn't. Then they would make a CRLF and write 06:01, but they didn't.

@ alecsandros

Yes, it's inconsistent. The Prinz Eugen war diary overall is consistent. Lütjens messages are consistent. Both together are not. That's the reason why I'm so reluctant if someone talks about truth. There is no truth. There are only conflicting informations. With a little bit of luck Antonio can reconstruct the most probable timeline. Nothing more nothing less.

@ Antonio

Yes, maybe. Statistics is one way to come to a result. That's fine with me. Antonio, you know, I'm not your adversary. I'm neutral. ...but 06:01:20 is the correct reading.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by alecsandros »

Herr Nilsson wrote: @ alecsandros

Yes, it's inconsistent. The Prinz Eugen war diary overall is consistent. Lütjens messages are consistent. Both together are not. That's the reason why I'm so reluctant if someone talks about truth. There is no truth. There are only conflicting informations. With a little bit of luck Antonio can reconstruct the most probable timeline. Nothing more nothing less.
... You know what would be worse ?

To assume Bismarck opened at 5:55:50, and Hood destroyed 5 minutes 30 seconds later... It's still 5:55... there are 5 minutes of battle... and there is 6:01:20
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Herr Nilsson wrote: "If they wanted to correct it, they could have done it. The could have written 06:00:20, but they didn't."
However, as you suggests yourself, the 20 was added later to be more precise. In this case they could not write 6:00:20 as it would have been the weather conditions....
They could not write 6:01:20 as well, as it was for sure incorrect (e.g. there is no time to allow for PoW to have completed her retreat at 6:03:45 and it was anyway conflicting with Lutjens declarations).

The only way they had to add seconds to be more precise (on an already written document) was logically to put them in between the two entries, and IMHO they did this way. As I said. of course the whole description of the explosion is going also into minute 6:01 but the seconds are related to the very moment Hood exploded.

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Herr Nilsson »

@ alecsandros

Well, no. Maybe the clocks on Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were different, but Lütjens statement is clear:

Image
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by alecsandros »

Herr Nilsson wrote:@ alecsandros

Well, no. Maybe the clocks on Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were different, but Lütjens statement is clear:
... all other primary sources are pretty clear...

Still, they don't match :think:
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

Marc, I know what drives your "challenges" my friend and are a lot appreciated as you know since many years.

If my works are so "solid" after so much time I have also to thank you and many others here in for having challenged " positively " everything I shared, ... so I had to do really a good work to pass your competent " scrutiny " ... and this is an enormous value add I have always used and I am still using before publishing anything as you know.

So, no problems, go ahead and do what you think is necessary to do ... I am OK with it and again I thank you for that :wink:

What I have to guarantee you once again, ... and you know me, ... is to keep and open mind approach, ... no side taken, ... no defense of a previous declared data because I did it when there will be a new more valid input to be considered, ... you know I will always admit my error and correct ... that is my way to find " my truth ".

@ Alecsandros,

I like your mathematic demonstration :wink: ... but that is the type of errors on doing things I try to avoid as much as possible.

That is why I have used in this case my Gaussian ( Statistics ) demonstration with as many inputs I could find ( and I have many more about 06.00 today :wink: ) ...and also I did some double check with some other available evidences before and after.

Do not underestimate the value of photos and film as a double check ... on this case Nh 69724 together with PoW gunnery map and salvoes 13th and 14th, is really a strong confirmation.

The overall timing evaluation of this battle I did is based on several time " milestones checkpoints " I have defined thru the years and they are supporting each others and providing additional confirmation before and after.

It is only when you do this verification and realize how it is that you realize how really this battle was fought, ... it was a " blink of an eye " from a time stand point, ... overall only 17 minutes or 1.020 seconds, ... assuming 05.52 and 30 seconds ( start ) and 06.09 and 30 seconds ( end ).

Hood explosion cuts it into 2 separate pieces : 450 seconds the first part ( until 06.00 ) and 570 seconds the second part.

Please always keep in mind those words written by Capt. J.C. Leach on his narrative :
Prior to the disaster to the "Hood" I felt confident that together we could deal adequately with "Bismarck" and her consort.

The sinking of "Hood" obviously changed the immediate situation, ...
So it is correct to analyze " 2 battles " inside this battle, ... before Hood exploded, ... and after Hood exploded, ... this is the reason why it is so important to nail this time down as I did as precisely as possible, ... and I am satisfied with my work so far.

Recent findings on Kew-PRO on track charts and many other additional documents only confirm 06.00 being correct, ... so NO reasons for me to put it in discussion.

Bye Antonio :D
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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Herr Nilsson wrote: "If they wanted to correct it, they could have done it. The could have written 06:00:20, but they didn't."
However, as you suggests yourself, the 20 was added later to be more precise. In this case they could not write 6:00:20 as it would have been the weather conditions....
They could not write 6:01:20 as well, as it was for sure incorrect (e.g. there is no time to allow for PoW to have completed her retreat at 6:03:45 and it was anyway conflicting with Lutjens declarations).

The only way they had to add seconds to be more precise (on an already written document) was logically to put them in between the two entries, and IMHO they did this way. As I said. of course the whole description of the explosion is going also into minute 6:01 but the seconds are related to the very moment Hood exploded.

Bye, Alberto
Some examples of corrections.

Netzbandt:
0182.jpg
0182.jpg (25.49 KiB) Viewed 4030 times
0286.jpg
0286.jpg (26.76 KiB) Viewed 4030 times
Fein:
0307.jpg
0307.jpg (26.52 KiB) Viewed 4030 times
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Hood's sinking: the timing of that fatal hit

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Thanks Marc, interesting examples.

Still no seconds in all of them, as seconds were very unusual (as well in all other Navies). In case of the PG KTB on May 24, there was no space to add a line after 6:00 and before 6:01 with the correct timing (6:00:20) and the Hood explosion statement.
PG KTB.jpg
(106.14 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Therefore they just added the 20 seconds between 6:00 and 6:01 to better precise an extraordinary event.

Of course you can interpret it in a different way but the 6:01:20 is in contrast with other German sources and with the fact the master chronometers between BS and PG (assuming a quality not very different from British ones as per Culverin post and due to the fact they were at sea since few days) could not differ by 1 minute. By the way, with Antonio Bonomi's battle timing and interpreting 6:00:20, even the chronometers of PoW (Gunnery map salvos) and PG differ by less than 10 seconds.

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