Cover up synopsis

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nilsson wrote: "....how one can trust bearings reported by Busch who states the battle began at 04:45.... "

Hi Marc,
IMHO there is a big difference: F.O.Busch bearings and distances just confirm MOST of the other cross bearings (many of them taken by British ships) taken at the same time (or close to it), not to mention Ellis authobiography...... These Norfolk GAR ranges are in evident contrast with the timing available on Norfolk, with the ship reported course AND even with the cross bearings reported by other ships.....

But, again, I can understand that someone want to assume this GAR ranges as true and I respect this choice, even if I don't trust them. However this choice will not change the fact that they were completely DISCARDED by Wake-Walker and Tovey in their reports and not taken into ANY account by Pinchin in his "Plot" during the "official embellishment" of the story.....

Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Why couldn't Norfolk and Suffolk see each other?

[Herr Nilsson]

@Herr Nilson

Do you have an ordered sequence of events ? [unique set to reconcile the different observations]

@alecsandros

No, at least not the way I could present it. There are a lot of things I still do not understand and everything is in progress.

Herr Nilsson wrote: "....how one can trust bearings reported by Busch who states the battle began at 04:45.... "

Hi Marc,
IMHO there is a big difference: F.O.Busch bearings and distances just confirm ALL the other cross bearings (most of them taken by British ships) taken at the same time (or close to it). These Norfolk GAR ranges are in contrast with the timing available on Norfolk, with the ship reported course AND even with the cross bearings reported by other ships.....

But, again, I can understand that someone want to assume this GAR ranges as true and I respect this choice, even if I don't trust them. However this will not change the fact that they were completely DISCARDED by W-W and Tovey in their reports and not taken into ANY account by Pinchin in his "Plot" during the "official embellishment" of the story.....

Bye, Alberto

@Alberto

IIRC the Busch bearings only match if one takes liberties with the timings. Whatever, I think we agree, that there is a lot of inconsistent information. My approach to deal with it is simply different and a lot more time consuming.
I don't say the GAR ranges are right, but I can not and will not ignore them. As I said before they make me thinking.... It's just funny that the poor Captain Phillips of all people signed them.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dunmunro wrote: "Why couldn't Norfolk and Suffolk see each other?"

Hi Duncan,
I can just imagine because of different , asymmetrical visibility conditions in that direction (very common at sea, even between the same 2 ships, one seeing the other but not the viceversa, as I experienced myself.....) or just because lookouts in both ships were concentrated on enemy......

Herr Nilsson wrote: "I don't say the GAR ranges are right, but I can not and will not ignore them. "

Hi Marc,
I don't ignore them as well, just you need to reconcile with all other available info, as Antonio did.
In this respect Antonio's reconstruction is the one that today puts together the vast majority of the evidences with a clear logic......

you wrote: "It's just funny that the poor Captain Phillips of all people signed them."

Well, we have a Rear-Admiral signing a sketch stating a distance is 10 sm and then declaring it was 15 sm.....
We have a Captain transmitting a message stating he had 3 guns in action when he decided to disengage and then forced to correct twice.....
Come on, this Phillips statement is by far the less funny "innocent error" (13,4 sm vs 12 sm as per last Antonio's reconstruction)......


In any case, I have to repeat that these Norfolk GAR ranges were immediately DISCARDED even by W-W and Tovey in their reports and not taken into ANY account by Pinchin in his "Plot", during the "official embellishment" of the story.....

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

@Alberto

Antonio's reconstruction is leading in a dead end I will not give it much attention anymore. Like Mr. Raven I'm just waiting for his article/book beeing published.

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Herr Nilssson:

agreed, as well as I'm still waiting a better complete reconstruction than Antonio's one, once we all know now that the official version ("Plot" included) is clearly "wrong" (to say the least).

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

@Alberto
Better is not the opposite of wrong. The official version is clearly better even it is wrong in certain details. Antonio's reconstruction is just very detailed (regardless of validity) and unfortunately people often mistake detailing with quality or even truth.

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Herr Nilsson:
Marc, I do disagree: 6:13 as PoW retreat time is totally "wrong". More than 15 sm for the cruisers is totally "wrong". The "Plot" is totally "wrong". They are not "details"....

Antonio's reconstruction is the one that today better matches all available evidences, in the absence of a better one.
Better may be not the opposite of wrong but is better. I have not seen yet a "right" version (different from Antonio's one), as your one is not yet complete for your own admission.....

Bye, Alberto

[alecsandros]

Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

6:13 as PoW retreat time is totally "wrong".

I knew you would write exactly that sentence. That is and was one of the standard fallback positions in almost every discussion we had over the last years. It was used as knock-out argument everytime Antonio's reconstruction was seriously challenged and I'm tired of reading it, because it nips any fruitful discussion in the bud. To use it is dogmatism and certainly not finding the "truth".

@Herr Nilsson:
Better may be not the opposite of wrong but is better. I have not seen yet a "right" version (different from Antonio's one), as your one is not yet complete for your own admission.....

Do you know that the Dane asked me for my own reconstruction of a Tirpitz camouflage, when he wanted to dicredit and silence me? I remember that a couple of people were asked for their own reconstruction the last two years in this forum and usually it had nothing to do with the topic itself. I don't like that debate culture, because one can challenge details of a reconstruction without making one by themself.

The problem is that I'm self-critical, I've already dismissed a lot of reconstructions with a lot less tolerances than Antonio's and I'm still not satisfied.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Herr Nilsson wrote: "That is and was one of the standard fallback positions in almost every discussion we had over the last years."

why ?

you wrote: "The problem is that I'm self-critical, I've already dismissed a lot of reconstructions with a lot less tolerances than Antonio's and I'm still not satisfied."

That's very good of you. However, if you are currently unable/unwilling to present something credible yourself, it's a waste of time just trying to discredit someone else work......
Antonio reconstruction can have some defects and still needs corrections, no doubts about that, but it's reconciling so many evidences that until someone will be able to present something better, it will be my reference for the battle..... I do wish that your one will be so accurate to become my reference in the future.

Bye, Alberto

[A Raven]

Re Mr Nilsson's message of the 26th of February, 11.27 am.

On the question of contradictions in official RN accounts, I can state with COMPLETE confidence, that MANY RN accounts of well known events contain what to some would appear to be major errors. Matapan comes to mind, If one reads ALL the reports, a conspiracy inclined person would believe that the RN made things up in a major manner, and then there is Jutland; the story as to how the official history was written caused great divisions between Beatty and Jellicoe as to who did what and when and how. A grand cover up to protect Beatty, or was it Jellicoe? And then we have the event of the 9th of November 1941, where the two Italian heavy cruisers fired on the British warships, fire that was so accurate that the targeted ships were not even aware that they were being fired upon. There is obviously a cover up here on the part of the British force commander, and that FOUR Italian destroyers steamed, as a unit, TWENTY MILES away from the scene of battle at a speed of THIRTY KNOTS, has to be a British invention, There are so many other instances of cover up on the part of the British, that they are too boring to mention.

This message posted at 9.15 est on the 26 of February.

[Herr Nilsson]

Herr Nilsson wrote: "That is and was one of the standard fallback positions in almost every discussion we had over the last years."

why ?

To promote the cover up theory. I (and IIRC Cag as well) elaborted how one can come to 06:13 very easily. So 06:13 is no proof of a cover up and it's not necessary to mention it every time.

you wrote: "The problem is that I'm self-critical, I've already dismissed a lot of reconstructions with a lot less tolerances than Antonio's and I'm still not satisfied."

That's very good of you. However, if you are currently unable/unwilling to present something credible yourself, it's a waste of time just trying to discredit someone else work......
Antonio reconstruction can have some defects and still needs corrections, no doubts about that, but it's reconciling so many evidences that until someone will be able to present something better, it will be my reference for the battle..... I do wish that your one will be so accurate to become my reference in the future.

Bye, Alberto

To make it clear, I don't want to discredit anyones work. Antonio's reconstruction including a cover up is one possible solution. Yes, I consider it possible. I even consider it possible that there was some embellishment. But the whole storyline is built on very shaky ground and sometimes so far-fetched, that it's very unlikely. In my opinion it needs to many bells and whistles to work (the poor Captain Phillips for exampel). That's why I think it leads into a dead end. I'm pretty sure that there is a much more elegant solution.

[alecsandros]

@Marc
Still, accepting one theory or another, you need to ask yourself: when did a British battleship, ever withdrew from a battle during WW2...

[Herr Nilsson]

Do Rodney and KGV count?