Naval History Forums

Hello Antonio,

the photo does !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Use your eyes and your brain if you are able to,

Oh you mean because this photo caption says something, it must be true. Is that true of the one in the same book that says it is the last shot from Hood which you insist as being from PoW several minutes after Hood has sunk?

Like the KTB these captions are correct when you want them to be for your purposes and wrong for the same reason. It looks like all of your photo interpretation and hence timeline is wrong.

Brooke's description is so detailed it is clearly made from notes at the time. Bismarck fired within one minute of PoW, maybe much less, which fits with the majority of other reports. Therefore the photo caption is wrong.


Dunmunro, I noted

If we correct the timing to match PoW's salvo chart we get:

0552:30 Hood opens fire
~0553:00-05 Bismarck open fire (confirmed by Leach, Rowell, Brooke)

all credit to you, but I thought the full text of Brooke's description made it perfectly clear Bismarck's first shot was before PoW's salvo landed. Far more precise timing than Antonio's distorted guesswork.

All the best

wadinga

wadinga wrote: ↑Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:46 am Hello Antonio,

the photo does !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Use your eyes and your brain if you are able to,

Oh you mean because this photo caption says something, it must be true. Is that true of the one in the same book that says it is the last shot from Hood which you insist as being from PoW several minutes after Hood has sunk?

Like the KTB these captions are correct when you want them to be for your purposes and wrong for the same reason. It looks like all of your photo interpretation and hence timeline is wrong.

Brooke's description is so detailed it is clearly made from notes at the time. Bismarck fired within one minute of PoW, maybe much less, which fits with the majority of other reports. Therefore the photo caption is wrong.


Dunmunro, I noted

If we correct the timing to match PoW's salvo chart we get:

0552:30 Hood opens fire
~0553:00-05 Bismarck open fire (confirmed by Leach, Rowell, Brooke)

all credit to you, but I thought the full text of Brooke's description made it perfectly clear Bismarck's first shot was before PoW's salvo landed. Far more precise timing than Antonio's distorted guesswork.

All the best

wadinga

The above quote is from my first post in this thread and I was using's Rowell's statement at the Hood BofI as a source. Thanks to you providing the full text of Rowell's hospital bed statement, as a further confirmation, we can pinpoint Bismarck's first salvo as being fired at ~0553:23 (~midway between PoW's first and 2nd salvos), using the open fire time for Hood and the minute markers on PoW's salvo chart as a timing reference. This timing is in full agreement with Leach (Narrative) Rowell and Brooke, and fair agreement with Ellis, Bailey Schmitz-Westerbrook and Leach (Hood BofI).

Antonio Bonomi wrote: ↑Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:54 pm Hello everybody,

we need a German translator here, … since I can only use my brain, … and a translator.

Lets see how the German native language will translate this one from Group West :


Group_West_.jpg


What das it mean : " ... von 05:55 bis 06:01 ... " ...


Hoping that nobody will try to state that it was the whole battle lenght neither on the German side ( cease fire at 06:09 ) or on the British side, ... from 05:52 and 30 seconds until ... the PoW retreat at 06:03, ... according to the Admiralty Battle Summary number 5.

Bye Antonio

If one only reads this transcript, the conclusion would be very clear: the entire battle lasted from 5:55 to 6:01. This is what is said unambiguously in this text."das zwischen 5:55 und 6:01 stattgefundene Gefecht")
However, the PG logbook states that the first British shots were fired (or maybe even arrived?) at 5:53, so the start of the battle would be earlier. Obviously different people typed these transcripts, and they have a different understanding on how the duration of the battle may be defined.
This shows very nicely that even with original information, from one side, things are still vague. All the attempts to create battle maps with minute accuracy are totally futile. To believe that such a reconstruction can be reliable, is totally naive and shows lack of basic understanding of data uncertainty.
As a conclusion, I go back to what I've always critized: To even remotely consider to be able to discuss the possibility of a court martial, 70 years later, out of an armchair, without any reliable information or any understanding of data uncertainty, is plainly a very, very silly thing to do. I hope that nobody takes the bait and replies to the new stupidity of a similar conspiracy theory for the German side.

Hello everybody,

the PRIMARY SOURCE information :


try to realize what this photo shows, ... assuming you are able to, ... and I have serious doubts about it, ... like for the geometry, ...




Bye Antonio

Hello everybody,

whoever wants to reconstruct the German open fire time using British witnesses (contradicting themseves, e.g.Brooke account and Leach testimony at second board, among the others), will NEVER be able to produce a COMPLETE and reliable timeline for the WHOLE battle (including a salvo sequence and RoF estimation e.g. the already not astonishing RoF of Bismarck will drop to unacceptable levels, far below PoW one), while using the clear German official documents (PG KTB + Gunnery Reports) we were able to perfectly synchronize German and British fire and to build a complete scenario, matching the milestones of this battle.

Apart from this above, definitive, argument, they are committing a huge approach mistake: if we use German observations for the British fire, we should say that Hood fired against Bismarck, and we know it is wrong.....

I suggest them to read again the primary source, the PG KTB entries from Brinkmann and Schmalenbach + Jasper confirmation of PG open fire time and the Baron book clear account of the sequence of events happened on board Bismarck during the delay (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7736&p=72944&hilit= ... ing#p72944). All of them (3 German GO's) are perfectly in synch and close definitely the discussion about Bismarck open fire time, at least until someone will be able to present a different COMPLETE timeline.
Good luck for their attempt !


Bye, Alberto

@Alberto and Antonio
Obviously the language barrier and cultural differences have created some side effects again:

My

I could turn the table on you and construct a cover up scenario: Brinkmann and his GO's clearly wanted to gloss over the shameful delay by pretending that PG opened fire the same time like BS. .....However, I don't want to be dragged to same low level.

wasn't meant as an insult but as a statement: My parents have teached me that it is low lewel, bad style or even condemnable not to be honest and to call someone names. That means in our case that I will always stay to the facts to the best of my knowledge, that I won't besmirch anyones name regardless of British or German just because it's opportune.

I could understand, if you take it as an accusation, but certainly it wasn't meant as an insult.

Alberto and Antonio, it I hope you understand and you accept my excuse.

Hi Marc,
excuses accepted from my side. I have exaggerated too, yesterday, in your regards.


Bye, Alberto

To start: I didnt follow this thread actively.

But the Picture "Bismarck feuert seine erste Voll-Salve" appears as -at least- its second salvo to me.

Its strictly my opinion, the smoke that can be seen near the aft turret cannot be from PG as the blast from the shooting would move it to port not behind the ship also considering wind conditions.

If this smoke would be from PGs shooting, wind must blow strongly from southeastern directions.

And also the (incomplete) shape seem to look like other firings from Bismarck.

also the wording (Voll-Salve) does not exclude previous (Semi/Ranging/Half) salvos.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another "wording problem" "laufendes Gefecht zwischen 208 hm und 180 hm" does not say wich distance is meant.
aktual distance as measured by rangefinders or (if you look at the protocol of the firing solution) true shooting distance based on Elevation of the gun in the moment of firing.

---------------------------------------
question at what time PG reduced Speed to what value between

------------------------------------------
regarding PG KTB
0537 meldet B-Dienst eine neue Einheit. Vermutlich leichter Kreuzer an BB
and
0543 meldet B-Dienst eine weitere Einheit an BB (später festgestellt als "Hood"

did any RN ship used wireless at these times
if not these wording could mask the Funkmess or GHG detection.

------------------------------
both fleets made 28 knots at 05.50
the german on course 220°
the british on course 300°
Am i right?

@Alberto

Thank you and accepted as well.

In regard of "wird das Feuer von PG und BS erwiedert" I assure you that one can read this sentence the way I've said. I have to admit that I really can't make an elegant literal translation, because the German language lacks the continuous form. Anyway, that are linguistic nuances.
Again - and I never made a secret of it - it is entirely correct to read it the way you do. I have no problem about it, I just wanted to say that this sentence isn't that clear as it seems.

However, we can certainly rule out that this sentence says anything about the sequence.
My interpretation of the German official statements is:

Bismarck fired first.

Reason: Brinkmann says so.

Prinz Eugen's delay is not longer than 90 seconds

Reason: First of all: It seems rather uncommon to mention the opening of fire of another ship in the same battle in German KTB's. I quickly checked Scharnhorst/Gneisenau against Rawalpindi, Renown and Glorious and I could just find one entry in Scharnhorst's KTB (against Rawalpindi Scharnhorst 1704 Gneisenau 1711). Brinkmann had the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone combining PG and BS opening of fire in one entry. In regard of BS he can be imprecise to a certain degree. IMHO everything above 2 minutes would cause an additional entry, because it's getting too imprecise. I personally tend to reduce it even further to a maximum of 90 seconds.

Marc,
I wouldn't like to come back to interpretations".

We have the PG KTB (Brinkmann) saying that at 05:53 Hood and KGV opened fire, we have another entry saying that at 05:55 PG and BS returned fire and we should really stay at what was written.
If PG fired 90 seconds after BS (as you say), logically the entries would have been written differently: 05:53: Hood, KGV and BS open fire. 05:55: PG returns fire, and it is not this way.

We have Schmalenbach saying in clear that PG and BS fired at the same time, after 4 to 5 Hood salvos (2 and half minutes delay).

We have Jasper confirming 05:55 for PG (not mentioning any BS fall of shells, eagerly observed while he was waiting his own permission to fire)

We have the Baron account describing what happened on board Bismarck and the surprise regarding the delay, with so many details that I cannot imagine he invented them. (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7736&p=72944&hilit= ... ing#p72944). The Baron was 3rd GO of Bismarck and surely he didn't forget Schneider's requests.

All the German official statements and all the German Gunnery Officers are in agreement about this German delay.
Plus we know Lutjens communicated a 5 minutes battle to sink Hood while there is no German document and no German account (no one AFAIK) stating that BS and PG fired with a significant delay one from another, after Lutjens gave permission to fire (JD) to his squadron as a whole, as perfectly logical.

For me the case is closed, until someone will be able to produce an alternative credible timeline (with a salvo sequence, photo analysis and an acceptable RoF for BS...) demonstrating the contrary.

As I have said, I'm not much interested in who pushed the fire button first (I still trust Lagemann caption and Antonio's analysis of the PG expended cartridges, because it is consistent with what we know and in the absence of any proof against it) but my 2 cents opinion is that Brinkmann added the 24/5 "summary" at the end of the day (saying BS fired first) already trying to explain that he just followed Lutjens orders (firing after BS) because he knew already that German instructions were not to engage battleships and that his actions would have been scrutinized, as they actually were (it is only my speculation and I will never be able to prove it).


Bye, Alberto

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

excuses accepted, ... and I provide you the excuse from my side as well for what I wrote.

@ Herr Nilsson & Thorsten Wahl,

we discussed on this forum the smoke on the Bismarck first salvo photo back on 2016, here in :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6893&start=15

I suggest you to carefully look at all the other photos of the German squadron during the battle and at the very famous Schmitz-Westerholt paint of the salvo that sunk the Hood in order to realize how the main guns smoke was leaving the warships behind them, ..especially regarding the Prinz Eugen.




Regarding the German Open fire timing I think Alberto above has already listed almost all the correct points to be evaluated, my personal opinion about it has not changed since my 2005 reconstruction work, it is 05:55.

Of course, I respect everybody else way to read the documents we have and their opinion about it, ... while I present mine and the logic reasoning behind supporting it.


Bye Antonio

my assumptions

both fleets made 28 knots at 05.50 distance about 30 km
the german ships on course 220°british ships seen at about 4o degrees port from bow
the british ships on course 300° german ships seen at about 25 degrees starbord from bow
Am i right?

28 knots means about 862 m/min

If yes from the available data

approach speed between both fleets was then about 1450 m/min (estimate)

If we have 30 km Rangefinder distance for PG at 0550 then we should have about 22,8km or ~25050 yards rangefinder distance at 05.55

flighttimes of german shells at this absolute distance ~48sec (20,3 cm) resp 42 sek (38 cm)

therfore calculated gunrange in 05.55
22,8 km - 1,15 km ~ 21,65 km for 20,3 cm guns
and ~22,9 km - 1,0 km ~ 21,9 km for 38 cm gun (additional rangefinder dist slightly larger than PGs)

these derived ranges doesnt fit he mentioned ranges and timetables as told us by the war diaries and reports.
(the 290 hm in the PG War diary is completely out of whack)

so the distance in 0550 (when sighted) must be lower then the written down ranges by about 1-2 km
this allows conclusion open fire for both german ships definately not before 5.55 m more likely near 5.56

and it seem likely to me that PG opens fire about 15 seconds before Bismarck given a a corrected range typo 20,9hm compared to the 290 hm


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
additional comment
POW gunnery reports states also Range = gun range wich is different from the measured rangefinder range

Thorsten, could you please cite the sentence with PG opening fire at 290 hm?

oh my fault 290 hm = Feuereröffnung british ships thx
-----nevertheless completely incomprehensive for the timing if distance at 5.50 = 30 km
given the approach velocity of 1450 m/min 290 hm should be reached within less then one minute
but the 3 mins from KTB give us about 4,35 km distance shortening
my above conclusions remain valid.

Thorsten Wahl wrote: "this allows conclusion open fire for both german ships definately not before 5.55 m more likely near 5.56"

Hi Thorsten,
thanks for your explanation on closure rate.
Based on a kind of "reverse engineering" starting from Hood explosion (assuming the fatal hit lands few seconds after 6:00) and trying (with all my limits) to reconstruct a salvo plot for PG and Bismarck keeping into account the shell flight time and the most reliable accounts (e.g. Jasper, Hunter-Terry, etc. and assuming Hood opened fire at 5:52:30), I got 5:55:20 for PG open fire time and 05:55:27 for Bismarck.... of course with due tolerances.....not so far from 5:56

(please see here for PG, based on Jasper: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7736&start=345#p73208)


Bye, Alberto