Hits on PoW and Bismarck

[Herr Nilsson]

@wadinga

I agree that Bismarck didn’t follow in Prinz Eugen‘s wake.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,


@ Herr Nillson,

you wrote :

I agree that Bismarck didn’t follow in Prinz Eugen‘s wake.

Once again, ... like many times before, ... you are kindly required to tell us why that is your personal opinion ... and what do you have to support it.

During which battle period ?

Please explain it to us, ... just like almost everybody else does here in, ...

Thanks and bye, Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

I thought you said it was in official documents, not just your personal opinion:

you are kindly required to tell us why that is your personal opinion

Lorenzen's statement seems to be the only reliable source the German authorities had for the forward shell strike, and he only mentioned hull penetration in XXI.


All the best

wadinga

[northcape]

A

[northcape]

There is almost a certainty that the Bismarck was on a course of around 220° from the PoW salvo plot as well as from the PG battle map..

A classic.

"Certainty" means a probability, so depending on the probability it can either be very certain, or less certain. In any case it means "it is not known for sure", or in other words, it is not a fact.

So what does it mean to have "almost a certainty"? "Almost" decreases what comes afterwards, so if something is "very certain" it becomes "less certain". If something is "less certain", it becomes "uncertain" or "very uncertain". (Actually, "almost" means that whatever follws afterwards, did just not happen, but it only happened "almost", which means ... nothing)/

My point is that I can't avoid the impression that this confused language is on purpose, e.g. to muddy already weak and unclear information even more. Again, what does "almost a certainty" mean? The combination of these two words don't make any sense.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

it was not me the one who made this :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=210#p68398

and soon after confirmed it with :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=210#p68400

so, now I think you should explain us what is your current opinion about that battle time and the Bismarck related course and why, ... based on what ?

I am just curious, ... that is why I ask you, ...

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

I see that even after Mr.Jurens wise words:

"From 0555-0603 the range rate seems to have dropped at a fairly steady rate of about -900 meters per minute."

the "king of fantasists", not yet accepting his total defeat, is back with his nonsense (and this troll is even fed by other "provokers) despite he had written:

Wadinga wrote: "Unlike you I would blindly trust a statement from Bill Jurens, but mot a single word from Antonio any more"viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=30#p80826

Now Wadinga writes: "Where in the official documents is it confirmed that Bismarck followed PG's wake on 220T until 06:03?"

If Mr.Wadinga was able to make "elementary school calculations" (his words), he would see that it is impossible for Bismarck to close range by 900 meters/minute (= 30 knots relative closing speed) making significant alterations of her course from 220°.
Mr.Wadinga theorized Bismarck on course around 270° during the PG film taken before Hood explosion: with Bismarck on such course for 1.5 minutes (duration of the film), it's simply impossible she could close range by almost 5000 yards in 4 minutes.... Mathematics and Geometry are still extremely difficult for Mr.Wadinga.


Still waiting for an alternative map from Mr.Wadinga (or from his feeders) showing Bismarck track now that his favorite "1990" ( ) map is proven to be wrong, as well as Brennecke/Busch very old ones.



Bye, Alberto

[Byron Angel]

Well ..... so much for the short-lived renewal of collegiality.

B

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Byron,
I'm afraid that "collegiality" (as well as RESPECT) is something someone must deserve. Mr.Wadinga does not, after having mocked at a reconstruction that was just inconvenient for his loved fairy tale (or "sacred cow") and that is now proven correct in all aspects (waiting for a decent alternative that he is totally unable to present).

Bye, Alberto

[Bill Jurens]

@ Byron Angel:

A close reading of the immediately previous memos on this thread will enable readers to determine from whence most of the animosity springs.

Bill Jurens

[Byron Angel]

The fact that the bulkhead between XX and XIX had to be reinforced due to the water pressure at high speed however points to an open ripped compartment XX, not to a simple "leaking" from compartment XXI.

>>>>> This is an unwarranted assumption. Once a ship was damaged and suffering flooding effects, it was (and probably remains so to this day) standard damage control procedure to establish a flooding boundary to limit the spread of water further into the ship. With the watertight integrity of bulkheads XXII/XXI and XXI/XX known to have been compromised and filling, the bulkhead separating section XX from section XIX was the obvious candidate for establishment of a flooding boundary. Shoring would then have been constructed on the "dry side" in accordance with the nature of the bulkhead (partition, watertight, structural), its overall area and depth within the ship, and the hydrostatic load the bulkhead was designed to withstand. (See "Principles of Warship Construction and Damage Control", Manning & Schumacher, USNI, 1935). It is worth noting that USN damage control doctrine was modeled fairly closely upon IGN doctrine and practice.

The decision to maintain a high speed during the tactical engagement certainly contributed to the rate of flooding, but it must be kept in mind that water, being an incompressible fluid, exerts its pressure everywhere within a filled volume.

- - -

2) a) I'm afraid this fact is irrefutable. Based on PoW salvo plot (and photo NH69722) Bismarck was on a course around 220° from 5:55 till 6:00:30, therefore the incoming shells could not come from aft the beam but only from forward. If you have an explanation for the range closure rate of almost 5000 yards in 4 minutes with Bismarck on a more westerly course (even for a very short time) please post it in the right thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752), where this has been analyzed in depth.
b) despite small inconsistency between drawings and color scheme (even by 6-8 feet), in any case the white bow wave is in compartment XX, not in compartment XXI. What is debatable is the distance of the hole from the bulkhead separating the 2 compartments.

>>>>> Your solution to the geometry problem, such as it has been defined by you, is without fault. The question is whether all the assumptions relied upon are completely accurate. You assert that they are. Others (myself included) ask questions which you have so far been unable to resolve or answer. For example:
(a) why does not a single German survivor or eye-witness account make mention of the projectile passing through the transverse bulkhead separating sections XXI and XX and exiting through the hull side of section XX? Not a single one.
(b) is it safe to assume that Bismarck did not yaw or weave, or otherwise momentarily deviate from heading 220deg for the entire period in question? Granted, it is an unanswerable question at this point. But that does not justify the anointing of educated estimations and plausible inferences as "irrefutable fact". As I commented in a previous post, we are not dealing here with a geometry problem; we are confronted with a 77 year old "cold case" detective investigation with many missing pieces.
(c) How geometrically precise is McMullen's salvo plot? For example, McMullen may have observed a straddle, but that is absolutely no guarantee that Bismarck was sitting exactly at the gun range McMullen noted; she might have been many hundreds of yards closer ... or nearer (see the effects of MPI deviations and the nature of shot distribution within a salvo pattern ... especially in the case of under-salvoes), or she might have been spot on the gun range. Once again, we are faced with too many missing pieces to entertain the idea that this should be accepted as irrefutable.

- - -

(d) While on the subject of McMullen's salvo plot, I have a question about the period of time during which PoW's fire was restricted to A and B turrets, due to Y turret being "wooded". Measure the angle between PoW's course/heading and the recorded lines of fire for salvoes 4 through 8. My protractor indicates angles of fire as 53, 52, 52, 50, 50 degrees respectively. This poses a problem in terms of the accuracy of McMullen's course plotting, since PoW's Y turret, at least according to Burt's "British Battleships 1919-1945", whose KGV plan form indicates that Y turret could bear upon targets up to 45 degrees off the bow. Based upon McMullen's salvo lot as it stands, it appears that PoW should theoretically have been able to engage with Y turret as well throughout the entire action ... but we know that she did not.

The punch line to all this is that, even in the case of the salvo 13 straddle well after A arcs had been open for some time, the angle of the line of fire versus PoW's heading remains at about 51 degrees. In short, McMullen's salvo plot appears to contain a flaw, in the sense that it probably is not representing an altogether accurate track for PoW herself or it is being somehow misinterpreted.

This is not a simple geometry exercise.

B

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Byron,

you wrote: "water, being an incompressible fluid, exerts its pressure everywhere within a filled volume"

Sure, but a simple leaking will not generate ANY pressure at high speed, and it is clear that the bulkhead between XX and XIX was reinforced because of such a dynamic pressure.

you wrote: "Your solution to the geometry problem, such as it has been defined by you, is without fault. The question is whether all the assumptions relied upon are completely accurate"

As I have already said I'm not much interested in stating that the entry hole is this one in compartment XXI and the exit one is that, in compartment XX. What is sure is that NO hit can have come from aft the beam, due to Bismarck steady course. Coming to you observations:

a) not relevant (see above). The shell may have come in in XXI and exited from XXI (extremely improbable but still possible, if you prefer this version), that is not what I understand from the account of the damages, as Thorsten has correctly explained (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=75#p80873).

b) In order to receive a hit from aft the beam a turn of 40° is needed and such a turn and counter-turn (at least 1 full minute is needed to Bismarck to turn 40° to starboard and then 40° to port, btw messing up her own gunnery if the turn is such an hard one...) prevent Bismarck from closing range with a relative closing speed of 30 knots. It's simply impossible, please try on paper to draw Bismarck track calculating distances based on relative courses and you will realize it. There is no ambiguity or "fog of war" in PoW salvo plot that nails mathematically BIsmarck to around 220° course.

c) McMullen was hitting Bismarck and his observations were surely reliable and distances and bearings were coming from the AFCT, no human error in them. I don't say that a specific salvo judged as a straddle cannot be a "fake" (again VERY, VERY improbable, due to McMullen precision in hitting Bismarck) but the steady closing rate of Bismarck distance in the salvo plot (900 meters per minute as per Mr.Jurens viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=135#p80975 or 30 knots relative closing speed) is so high that nobody can imagine her course to a more westerly one than 220°(except a biased fantasist like Mr.Wadinga). Again, please try on paper to find a solution: I can guarantee you, there is not, except possibly to have Bismarck sailing for 1 minute on course... 150°...after having turned to 270°, that is clearly (I hope for everybody) wrong. In addition the closure rate of BS vs PG prevent any significant turn anyway or even wave due to the fact that Bismarck closed range by 800 meters to PG in 8 minutes (from photo NH69722 to film start), thus no significant deviation to her course at 30 knots is possible anyway to close to PG (27 knots) sailing straight (as per her battlemap http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... tlemap.gif).

d) an interesting observation, already discussed (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=210#p68398) that can explain why in PoW salvo plot the course of Bismack is not exactly 220°, but slightly more southerly. For sure no way Bismack was going to west in any case before Hood explosion.


Unfortunately for Mr.Wadinga, this is strictly a geometry exercise, and we will be happy to evaluate your proposed solution, once presented, respecting all these above closure rates and all the other evidences.


Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

Hello everybody,


@ Herr Nillson,

you wrote :

I agree that Bismarck didn’t follow in Prinz Eugen‘s wake.

Once again, ... like many times before, ... you are kindly required to tell us why that is your personal opinion ... and what do you have to support it.

During which battle period ?

Please explain it to us, ... just like almost everybody else does here in, ...

Thanks and bye, Antonio

My current working hypothesis looks like that.

BSDSB.jpg (37.06 KiB) Viewed 1021 times

[Alberto Virtuani]

...still shells are coming against Bismarck from (very slightly) forward the beam, not aft....

...not respecting PoW salvo plot distances and closing rate.....

When (and where on the track) was Bismarck turning on course around 270° as per PG film (guns trained extremely aft) ?

[Herr Nilsson]

Hi Byron,

you wrote: "water, being an incompressible fluid, exerts its pressure everywhere within a filled volume"

Sure, but a simple leaking will not generate ANY pressure at high speed, and it is clear that the bulkhead between XX and XIX was reinforced because of such a dynamic pressure.

German transverse bulkheads in the bow area were designed to be reinforced in case of damage. It was considered as "too heavy" to built it with permanent reinforcements which could withstand damages and pitching in any case. They prefered provisional reinforcement.

...still shells are coming against Bismarck from (very slightly) forward the beam....

...not respecting PoW salvo plot distances and subsequent closing rate.....

When was Bismarck on course around 270° as per PG film (guns trained extremely aft) ?

...not necessarily...

...possibly...but then PG's map is wrong..

...err...never...