Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

forget for a moment RearAdm Wake-WAlker attitude that is clearly understandable from his own available interview and mostly by the events he was into, ... you wrote again :

The intentional alteration of maps etc is very hard to prove, you understand the amount of work to sort out the incorrect positions of ships and the corrections made at the time when ships of both sides realized their estimations were wrong.

Just look : " The Plot " creation for WW second board declarations; - Capt Ellis autobiography vs his report; - Adm Tovey dispatches point 17 ( more 15 sea miles ) and 19 ( PoW retreat 06:13 with Y turret jammed already; - WW report with 2 times for PoW retreat, first 06:03 and after 06:13 ; - Hood board 1 vs 2 WW change of a signed official declaration ( 20.000 -> 30.000 ); - WW change of a declaration from his own interview to his own report ( soon after 5 am aware - > unaware until 05:50 ) - Capt Leach change of declarations from his own radio message to his report ( nr of guns available, time of retreat vs Tovey dispatches ) ; - the Admiralty board accepting ONLY the Adm Tovey intentionally altered and incorrect/misleading dispatches; ... etc etc etc ...

Do you need something more to be convinced about what they really did about the " intentional alteration " ?

You also wrote :

You have demonstrated they are there I agree, but there are still critical fundamental questions remaining unanswered.

So, it appears that you agree that the above documents have been intentionally modified and altered, ... obviously on purpose for something, ... and we do know thanking McMullen and Sir L. Kennedy why they did it, ... to avoid an inquiry/court martial for Capt Leach and RearAdm Wake-Walker and ... I must add, ... also for Capt Ellis once the inquiry was realizing the truth of what really happened.

I do not understand which " fundamental questions " in your opinion remain unanswered, ... and mostly which type of responses/evidences you are assuming will be enough to respond to those questions either.

If somebody assume that we need a written and signed letter from Churchill to Pound ordering him to go for the " cover up " I think that we will never find one, .. and I will be a lot surprised if something like this really exist at all.

What I think exist and could be an additional demonstrations of the reality, ... just like Capt Ellis autobiography and WW recorded interview lately surfacing, ... are the Hood Midshipman W. Dundas interrogation report, probably still secreted, ... and the Suffolk and Norfolk tactical plots, obviously having on them the bearings and their estimated real distances ... for example.

But in my personal opinion what we have already is MORE than enough to sustain what I have already written and published, ... and that is the irrefutable truth of what has been done between end of May and September 1941, ... until the final recognition's in October 1941.

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Alberto no problem you deserve the plaudits. Again if you believe WW is mediocre, no problem, but a cover up for cowardice is a different matter.

Hi Antonio, just saying there are differences does not mean intentional fraudulent willfull malice of forethought to deceive a group of people who were professional officers. As you well know there are reasonable explanations for the number of guns Leach reported etc etc etc. We have discussed those at length without resolution and yet they are still talked of as being fact.

Please may I ask humbly that you do not twist my words to say that I now admit to something I have not, Im afraid it is a prime example of taking a snippet of someone's words and using them out of context.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Cag wrote: "if you believe WW is mediocre, no problem, but a cover up for cowardice is a different matter."

Hi Mr.Cag,
whether I personally consider W-W a mediocre or a coward (your word) is irrelevant. I agree with you that the comments are not indicating necessarily cowardice, however they surely show an "average" warrior, at least......

The embellishment of the story was anyway needed to allow the decorations, in case either of mediocre or of "timorous" behavior, while only a serious inquiry could have decided whether it was a matter of conscientious respect of the fighting instructions, a matter of negligence/mediocrity or a more serious matter of cowardice.


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

you wrote :

Please may I ask humbly that you do not twist my words to say that I now admit to something I have not, I am afraid it is a prime example of taking a snippet of someone's words and using them out of context.

It is NOT my intention to utilize someone's words and use them out of context. I do NOT have any need about it, ... given the hundreds of congratulations for my work received world wide.
I thought you had finally realized the provided evidence of the intentional modifications occurred, ... evidently you have NOT.

... just saying there are differences does not mean intentional fraudulent willful malice of forethought to deceive a group of people who were professional officers. As you well know there are reasonable explanations for the number of guns Leach reported etc etc etc. We have discussed those at length without resolution and yet they are still talked of as being fact.

Once again I respect your opinion about those being considered by you as " differences " with no intentional fraudulent willful malice, ... while in the opposite, ... I think those have been intentional Official documents modifications done with a very intentional fraudulent willful malice.

Those are irrefutable evident well proven facts and are still well recorder into the available Official documents on their version either BEFORE and AFTER the intentional modification and alteration occurred.

Anyway, ... we can all remain of our different opinion as said, ... my work is out and published and as I told you above, ... already well accepted by almost all the readers including some very competent persons, ... so, ... no problems for me at all.

Bye Antonio

[paulcadogan]

Hi all,

Thanks to all for accepting my thoughts in the spirit in which they were given. I'm not going to belabour the points I made as I accept that opinions may differ and after all this time, I don't think they will change. That's the way it is, but hey...imagine if we all thought the same way how unexciting things would be!

But...Alberto, I must tackle the following point you made:

Why didn't BS open fire at her ? Lutjens didn't want to waste ammunition against a ship that could easily (as happened the evening before even with NF from 7 sm distance...) sail away quickly under smoke. BTW, it was not the first time SF was at such a distance from enemy: she was even closer at 2:56 during the night.....

Come now....compared to the overnight situation with fog banks or snow flurries to retreat into, you're saying that Lutjens would ignore a shadowing cruiser in plain view, in good daylight visibility at 8 - 9 miles range from Bismarck's guns? That cruiser had hung on all night, sending a stream of reports, and now your GHG operators are picking up more ships approaching - and you're not going to jump at a major opportunity to even try to knock her out?? How long would it take Suffolk to turn around and flee to safe range, smoke or not. (Bismarck fired at PoW retreating behind smoke for several minutes, and reportedly nearly hit her too.)

If that is indeed the case then Lutjens was guilty of serious dereliction! Can't believe Lindemann wouldn't have pressed him to open fire!

It just does not compute.

Surely the above was not going to be my personal Officer attitude on that moment having the possibility to fire and try to help the newest RN battleship still engaged to win that battle, ... given the superiority 3 versus 2 that they still had on that moment.

No, not 3v2 superiority - more like 2v1 inferiority. The scene as it would have appeared (as in my description) suggested PoW had already been knocked out of action. The loss of her gunnery output (which WW reported noticing) while under heavy fire and disappearing behind the smoke cloud would mean she was likely no longer a factor in the battle - which in fact she wasn't as she was already retreating. Had Norfolk even attempted to fire salvos, (despite the belief of her GO that he was not in effective range) that could conceivably have invited retaliation from Bismarck, whether immediate or delayed, with Norfolk being within effective gun range of her 38 cm guns.

Why didn't her GO make note of more ranges? Well, one can only speculate: considering the difficulty encountered by PoW when on 280 and 300 degrees due to wind-blown spray directly fouling the RF's and the difficulty with the 15 ft DCT RF in getting ranges, when Norfolk turned to close between 0555 and 0600, the GO may have had difficulty getting ranges until the ship again turned to a course with less interference? Plus, he had no FoS to make any corrective judgments. Just a thought!

And now I'm late for work!! Have a great day all!

Paul

[Dave Saxton]

.......Where as for others it's due to new evidence between the two inquiries or evidence from new sources or just incorrect or mistaken entries.

I agree that the 'fact' is that there are disparities in evidences for a great deal of evidences between the two inquiries and reports, but proving the real or hidden reason for these without any other substantial evidence is almost impossible, as there are plausible reasons and other facts for and against, therefore it can only ever be opinion.............
Cag.

There will always be a degree of uncertainty for the historian when evaluating evidence. Some degree of conflicting data and reports are the nature of the beast, because mere humans make and record the observations.

When dealing with military history there is also the fact that misinformation is sometimes deliberately written into primary documents, official reports, official histories, semi public, or secret inquiries, and also particularly communications. Why?

It is done as a counter Intel technique. It cannot be guaranteed that the information contained even in top secret materials will not somehow fall into the hands of an enemy or a potential enemy. It cannot be assumed that people who have read secret documents will not fall into the hands of an enemy. Of course, it would be foolish to assume that communications are ever secure.

There are two examples of disinformation being deliberately written into primary documents and reports I can think of right away. One is the writing into documents and reports that the mines that sank many Allied ships in the channel in 1944 were conventional magnetic mines or acoustic mines. The Allies knew that the mines were a new type of advanced mine with a pressure trigger, which there was no effective counter to. However, they did not want the enemy to know how effective their new weapon truly was. This was kept secret for decades after the war, because they did not want the Soviets to know either.

Another example, during the Anzio operations the Germans successfully jammed several Allied radars. The Allied counter was to pretend it didn't happen, because they did not want the enemy to know that their jamming measures were effective.

I don't think that this type of thing was widespread, but suspect in some cases were there is conflicting data or data that does not make sense that this could be the case. There will always be a degree of uncertainty about some things.

[wadinga]

Hello Paul & All,

Paul, you started your scenario thus:

Kill all hindsight. Put yourself on Norfolk's bridge at 0535.

You are steaming alone on course 240. You cannot see your consort Suffolk, some distance to starboard based on your DF bearings. You believe the enemy is somewhere on your starboard bow.

Suffolk has been reporting position, course and speed as well as enemy bearings to you (with her unknown positioning error) and Pinchin or whoever has plotted them on your plot. The D/F you have achieved has been "of great value" in at least confirming she is somewhere to starboard.
At 05:20 her quoted position

0520 (B). Enemy bore 203°, 15 miles, possibly increasing speed; and shortly afterwards altered course 30° to port and then back to starboard.

plotted on your chart says she is about 10 miles due North of you, and the enemy bears 203 degrees 15 miles from her! Either Suffolk is reporting you, or, if she is somehow invisible to you, the enemy is on your port side! This creates massive confusion.

You have been observing smoke on your port bow since 0516, which you might think could possibly be your big ships (BC1) that you had deduced from Icarus' signal were "in the vicinity". The advance of the smoke plumes suggest the ships are moving fast.

Please do not be mislead by Antonio's fortunate latest "face-saving" scoop. Wake-Walker's radio broadcast is simply inaccurate. The only thing W-W can "deduce" is that BC1 may be 60 plus miles astern, somewhere near Icarus, which is somewhere near Electra and since they can only go as fast as Norfolk, they can never catch up The Norfolk log does not say moving smoke plumes it says "smoke".

Antonio kindly plotted up this situation (see page 26 of thread: The Plot- Wadinga_Sean_trial_02.jpg ) but neglected to put Bismarck in the place where Ellis was telling W-W she was (about the P of the red PoW ). On Norfolk's port side. Suffolk being invisible at only ten miles to the north doesn't make any sense, but where is she? Supposing she is there hidden by mist, mirage or whatever? Single inaccurate D/F bearings don't tell you. A guessed triangle (provenance unknown) put on a map sometime later, doesn't tell you at 05:35 on the 24th . I hope soon to have map-making and posting facilities of my own, then we shall see something!

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dave Saxton wrote: "......examples of disinformation being deliberately written into primary documents and reports......"

Hi Dave,
thanks for this interesting point. It may not be necessarily the same situation here, but it does support my view that, for superior, good war needs, the official reports may be intentionally altered.

Paul Cadogan wrote: "you're saying that Lutjens would ignore a shadowing cruiser in plain view, in good daylight visibility at 8 - 9 miles range from Bismarck's guns? ..... Bismarck fired at PoW retreating behind smoke for several minutes, and reportedly nearly hit her too"

Hi Paul,
just at home from work and back to our favorite topic.....

I agree that the conditions when Bismarck fired at Norfolk (daylight, distance 7 sm, but fog banks) and when Suffolk was at 9 sm from her at 2:56 (visual contact, but few light as it was just dawn) may have been different.

However, as you say, in the same conditions, the Germans fired at PoW retreating under smoke, after they were consistently straddling her at each salvo.
Distance was from 7 to 8 sm, range was already acquired. They scored 0 hits, obtained 0 damage from near miss: Bismarck fired 3 salvos while still on a steady course from 6:01:30 till 6:03 (according to the last probable salvo plot we have discussed, before turning herself. Please note that BS had hit PoW 3 times, at each salvo, before 6:01:30) and PG just hit her after 6:02 for the last time, then fired other 7 salvos from 6:02:30 till 6:04 on a steady course without hitting her anymore.
There were a total of 16 guns bearing, but no hit due to PoW maneuver and smoke screen, even before the Germans started turning as well !

Now do you really think that Bismarck could fire at Suffolk, with only 4 guns bearing, from 10 sm and that there was a good chance for her to score a hit against a smaller target, whose range had still to be found and that would have immediately altered course and made smoke ?
Just during the Vollsalve flight time, Suffolk could have altered her course, making the subsequent firing solution almost impossible to be calculated, as well as it was impossible for BS and PG to calculate a firing solution against the retreating PoW.
The real risk, as Ellis correctly appreciated, was that Bismarck reversed course and surprised Suffolk.....



Apart from these "tactical" considerations, I have to kindly insist that you study carefully Antonio's last battlemap, posted in this same thread, page 7.
Only with a battlemap in front of you, you will realize that there is NO other larger distance at which Suffolk could be at 5:41 than the above 10 sm,: this NOT because of Ellis (18.000 yards), nor Busch (176 hectometers) measurements, but due to the bearings we have from SF to the enemy, from PoW to SF, from PoW to NF and from NF to the enemy. These bearings are cross-checked perfectly using Busch bearings just as a confirmation.
Nobody has yet been able to present any alternative battlemap, except the poor Pinchin who had received the hard task to respect much more difficult "requirements" (distance of cruisers from enemy >= 15 sm) and who was therefore unable to respect the correct bearings.....


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

you wrote :

I hope soon to have map-making and posting facilities of my own, then we shall see something!

This is really a great new ! Bravo

Waiting to see the results of your effort now, ... and inviting everybody else to do the same, ... so you will realize the truth ... and what has been done, ... by yourself.

Plot_redone_adjusted_bearings_007.jpg (79.49 KiB) Viewed 1265 times

Polygon_ref_PoW_Plan_4_01.jpg (61.06 KiB) Viewed 1265 times

Polygon_on_Plot.jpg (97.79 KiB) Viewed 1265 times

Bye Antonio

[Antonio Bonomi]

SK_NK_PoW_at_0320_011.jpg (76.51 KiB) Viewed 1265 times

[Herr Nilsson]

What about:

0550: “Hood” and “Prince of Wales” in sight 220° 14 miles

?

In your drawings it's 215°.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you are absolutely right Marc !!! ... as I wrote above, ... it is ONLY by working on the bearings on a real map that one can understand what as been done.

Once you have to respect ALL the bearings you have at hand, ... you clearly recognize that what has been done by Pinchin is clearly NOT correct in order to respect the directions he evidently got to realize that map for the WW second board new declarations.

This means that as it is evident also in graphic form, ... that the Norfolk course between 05:41 and 06:00 is NOT correct as traced, ... and it needs to be made better in order to respect the known bearings declared both ways, ... versus the reality.

In fact on " The Plot " Hood track is clearly incorrect and unacceptable, ... and that is the only way Pinchin had to respect on that map the 220° bearing between Norfolk and Hood, ... tracing an Hood wrong course, ... once you have as reference an Hood correct track on the map, ... then Pinchin traced track of Norfolk on " The Plot " appears incorrect just as you noticed ... and needs to be adjusted, ... most likely it was NOT an approaching curve, ... but a real change of course from 240° to 220° soon after 05:41.

Opinions and value add is always welcome, ...

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

What about:

0550: “Hood” and “Prince of Wales” in sight 220° 14 miles

?

In your drawings it's 215°.

It was nice of Hood and PoW to appear at a nice even 220d and not an awkward 221.4 or 118.7d...

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ all,

we are discussing about Norfolk bearings and distances from Hood/PoW, Suffolk and the enemy ( Bismarck and Prinz Eugen ) since years.

We know " The Plot " and Pinchin map is an invented document made on purpose.

Everybody is invited to provide his own version of the map in graphic format, ... respecting as much as possible the known data available from 05:00 until 06:30.

Many thanks for your value add ...

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you are absolutely right Marc !!! ... as I wrote above, ... it is ONLY by working on the bearings on a real map that one can understand what as been done.

Once you have to respect ALL the bearings you have at hand, ... you clearly recognize that what has been done by Pinchin is clearly NOT correct in order to respect the directions he evidently got to realize that map for the WW second board new declarations.

This means that as it is evident also in graphic form, ... that the Norfolk course between 05:41 and 06:00 is NOT correct as traced, ... and it needs to be made better in order to respect the known bearings declared both ways, ... versus the reality.

In fact on " The Plot " Hood track is clearly incorrect and unacceptable, ... and that is the only way Pinchin had to respect on that map the 220° bearing between Norfolk and Hood, ... tracing an Hood wrong course, ... once you have as reference an Hood correct track on the map, ... then Pinchin traced track of Norfolk on " The Plot " appears incorrect just as you noticed ... and needs to be adjusted, ... most likely it was NOT an approaching curve, ... but a real change of course from 240° to 220° soon after 05:41.

Opinions and value add is always welcome, ...

Bye Antonio

Antonio,

thank you for the explanation. What I do not understand is why Pinchin had to falsify Norfolk's course between 05:41 and 06:00 AND
to draw Hood's "rough track of joining positions" additionally.
I want to say that the sketch of Hood's track is just a sketch and does not lay claim of completeness. There is no need for falsifying Norfolk's track.

And what if Norfolk's track is really right?