Hits on PoW and Bismarck

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

I like the pitiable way this poor guy is now reduced to beg help from other people because he is unable to discuss any more the arguments presented...

Wadinga wrote: "Maybe your speculation will be supported by the poster here who can say "I was the technical representative on that expedition [to Hood and Bismarck] representing the Marine Forensics Panel of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers"."

IMHO no leakage can create a pressure at high speed against the bulkhead of a compartment behind the one where water is leaking.....Bulkhead between XX and XXI or the hull in compartment XX must have been open ripped to oblige a reinforcement of XIX-XX bulkhead.
I'm waiting for an explanation of the contrary and ready to learn more.

As I have said, we can respectfully wait for Mr.Jurens' evidences pointing to a hit coming from aft the beam when his book will be available.... To be accepted, they just need to be more solid than the PoW salvo plot because this one alone fixes Bismarck course to 220° (or less) from 5:56:10 till 6:00:30, during the time all hits were received. In addition there is photo NH69722, showing Bismarck on course 220° behind PG, as per all accounts, at an earlier stage of the battle.


What we cannot wait for is to have Mr.Wadinga understanding that mathematics and geometry cannot be countered by accounts from a sailor or by Lagemann captions (I would like to see the signature of Lagemann on the photos, however. If I remember correctly, Mr.Wadinga has not posted it yet).
Only the photos themselves and the film can have a similar value to PoW salvo plot, but one has to be able to study and understand them: Mr.Wadinga is not.


Is Mr.Wadinga able to put in context (with a track) a hit like the bow one with a course 260°-270° ? Is he able to substantiate this crazy theory without the help of forensic experts and without using old wrong maps ? Is he able to counter the PoW salvo plot irrefutably demonstrating Bismarck course ?
Answer is NO to all these questions.



Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

as stated above someone is loosing himself while desperately trying to find something to hang on to …

Lagemann times the film and stills before Hood is sunk.

Where are the evidence ?

Show us the map and course run by the Bismarck as for your " delirium " ... it seems to me someone is acting more and more on the Winklareth way, …

We have enough of the … bla, bla, bla, bla, … and no evidence.

Where is the alternative view against this one :

BS_received_PoW_Hits.jpg (60.77 KiB) Viewed 777 times

Show us what you want to state, … we are all waiting your " delirium " results as they are … in a graphic visible format.

Obviously after, … the event graphic snapshot … must be merged into an overall battle map as I did, … consistently.

I just wait what is going to come, … to be produced and published about it.

Bye Antonio

[Bill Jurens]

Although I could add more, due to the consistently belligerent and demeaning tone of correspondence -- mostly in my perception coming from the "Italian" side of the discussion -- I honestly feel that further discussion of this issue -- unless the tone changes dramatically -- is unlikely to be productive and is probably to all intents and purposes essentially pointless. The presentation of arguments and observations on either side is of course entirely legitimate and appropriate, but accompanying these arguments and observations with incessant and often offensive breast-beating and name-calling, retards rather than enhances the chances of reaching some meaningful and useful conclusions.

Once things tone down a bit, I may participate again. Until that occurs, I -- as a variety of other fairly-knowledgeable correspondents have clearly chosen to do in the past -- will opt to recuse myself from further discussion. This does not mean that I have 'given up', nor should it be interpreted to mean that I have nothing more to offer, it just means that I think it is more useful to wait until the tone of the correspondence returns -- if it ever does -- to more respectful levels.

The real issue here does not revolve around the precise angle of interception of the hit in Bismarck's bow. While interesting enough insofar as it goes,in reality it falls into the category of historical trivia. The important thing is how that hit, however it may have been acquired in detail, affected the remaining parts of the operation.

The critical issue -- or issues -- here, and in other areas of this rather lengthy series of discussions, really revolves around the issue of falsifiability, i.e. around the idea that an idea, in order to be meaningful in some sort of logical way must -- at least in principle -- be falsifiable. (Check Karl Popper for details...) In the case of the 'conspiracy theorem' it appears that falsifiability is impossible insofar as any evidence which is taken to support of the theory is automatically considered as reliable, whereas any evidence which apparently or actually contradicts the theory, is in principle unreliable insofar as it can be dismissed as part of the 'cover-up'.

My observations are that although over the majority of the action with the British, the angle of approach would have been for the most part forward of the bow -- that's a trivial observation -- the descriptions of the physical evidence suggests -- although admittedly somewhat obliquely (no pun intended) -- that the projectile in question actually approached from aft of the beam. My diagram in the upcoming Bismarck book marks the angle of approach, I feel appropriately, as 'approximate'.

I do not feel that physical evidence, photographic or otherwise, is sufficiently strong to permit one to make reach any certain conclusions regarding the position and/or attribution of entrance and/or exit holes. The surviving anecdotal reports are, in my opinion, insufficiently detailed and consistent to determine the approach angle with certainty, leaving one with nothing much more satisfying than a 'most probable' solution. Other honest and intelligent men might disagree, but cannot -- again in my opinion -- disagree with certainty.

Bill Jurens

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

To be accepted, they just need to be more solid than the PoW salvo plot because this one alone fixes Bismarck course to 220° (or less) from 5:56:10 till 6:00:30, during the time all hits were received.

As I posted, some while ago, in another thread:

I do not believe anyone has accurately timed the Bismarck hits or even definitively decided in which order they were made. No description of entry or exit angles exists as in the case of PoW. At the crudest level of analysis a line drawn between the 6th and 9th points suggests a Bismarck course of less than 200T and between 9th and 13th more than 230T. The "suggested" course for Bismarck at the top of the sheet appears to be 212T (have you a clearer copy?) Bismarck's dotted course is pure guesswork.

If the drawn length of the salvoes is to scale (for instance either 7 or 8 is definitely incorrect) then the point of origin is wrong and the fabricated track of PoW is incorrect. This makes sense, since it was generated from the AFCT data which has no ship's track, and it leaves out the second turn to port and emergency turn to starboard experienced by Brooke and seen aboard the German ships.

Since then we have seen fabricated, "visualised", "concluded" entry/exit tracks produced, none with any more provenance than the provider's imagination. When asked for provenance the providers are either shy or belligerent.

The salvo plot has the illegible (on the web copy) "assumed" course of Bismarck as perceived in PoW printed at the top. Whatever it is, it is not 220T. It is not "fixed" at all.


Your co-author has been to the Bundesarchiv, and has examined the photos for which the original caption recorded by the catalog shows shell splashes as being from Hood, just like Busch's book, and attributed to Lagemann. Your co-author knows if anything is written on the back, but he is not saying. Why not?


BTW please take the H out of IMHO when you post. As has been impartially observed your

consistently belligerent and demeaning tone of correspondence

suggests you are incapable of doing humble.


Hello Bill, Thank you for your forbearance, it will be a great shame if the poor behaviour of some posters means you will not contribute your expertise and injections of reality.

I'm afraid I cannot agree with your observation:

The real issue here does not revolve around the precise angle of interception of the hit in Bismarck's bow. While interesting enough insofar as it goes,in reality it falls into the category of historical trivia.

I believe it is the very lynchpin of the Conspiracy Theory. The attempt to rewrite the Denmark Straits action and denigrate the universally accepted version as a cynical British fabrication "written by the Victors" revolves around the timing of the film and photographs. Limited as it is, it is far more coverage than any other naval engagement has had. The "trotting out" of irrelevant stock footage of Italian battleships being hit or Barham blowing up for TV documentaries is evidence to that.


A & A have fabricated a timetable (and maps and many other things) based on their assertion that the film shows Bismarck after Hood has blown up. Once that timetable is disproved their whole conspiracy assertion falls to pieces. Leach didn't panic and does not deserve the accusation of cowardice, With nothing to hide there is no Conspiracy. The ludicrous obssession about what constitutes "retreating" and at what minute it happened and whether Tovey was right to record it happened at 06:13 or some other time truly is historical trivia. Is retreating from imaginary torpedoes, more of less heroic/cowardly than a real hail of fire?


Whereas I believe Rob Winklareth genuinely thought he had discovered something, the withholding or redaction of real evidence and the huge amount of fabricated evidence generated using pseudo mathematics and geometry shows we are dealing with a more sinister attempt to distort truth here. Purely for personal gain. One that needs to be snuffed out before it gains credence.


Luckily,

due to the consistently belligerent and demeaning tone of correspondence

of the promoters and the efforts of many like myself to expose their evident chicanery, they are gaining no credence at all.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "The salvo plot has the illegible (on the web copy) "assumed" course of Bismarck as perceived in PoW printed at the top. Whatever it is, it is not 220T. It is not "fixed" at all"

I have explained to this denier in the right thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=930#p80769) how the straddles fix the course of Bismarck to a course around 220°, NEVER more westerly because this is mathematically proven, for the whole period in which Bismarck may have received hits (5:55 - 6:00:30).
Mr.Jurens confirmed it: "the angle of approach would have been for the most part forward of the bow", as per Antonio's reconstruction and NOT as per 1990 or Brennecke maps. Now Mr.Wadinga has to invent another timeframe when this hit has been received: was it a very lucky shell of the last salvos fired by McMullen while turning hard, that according to Wake-Walker had a huge spread due to the turn itself ? Was it Alwin to hit Bismarck at 6:03 ? Was it Norfolk opening fire from aft the beam of Bismarck ?

Mr.Wadinga has not proposed any alternative and is clearly unable to show us the hits and their possible timing compared to Bismarck course because he was still desperately using old wrong maps....

The problem is that the hit came at a certain time with Bismarck on a certain course: which are they ? It's a simple question....

Bill Jurens wrote: "...due to the consistently belligerent and demeaning tone of correspondence -- mostly in my perception coming from the "Italian" side of the discussion... "

I hope Mr.Jurens has had no time enough to read back and to see who was insulting first (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830&p=54913&hilit=idiot#p54913), (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&hilit=stupid&start=135#p65542), (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=79536&hilit=stupid#p79536), who was first using anti-nationalistic insinuations mocking at tragedies and finding them amusing (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&hilit=tragedy&start=660#p80369), (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&p=80385&hilit= ... ing#p80385), who first started mocking at our historical work speaking of "ziggurat" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830&p=57020&hilit=ziggurat#p57020) of well-concocted speculations" and of "conspiracy theory" or who was first insinuating about "revisionism" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=64728&hilit= ... sts#p64728).

Having not seen his authoritative condemnation of this wild bunch of hooligans, I have to think that he had no time in the past to read this forum and thus he has NO TITLE to say that "Italians" are using belligerent tones here.
The poor alternative is that he agrees with their insults, and I don't even want to think such a shame.


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

I will intentionally not add any comments to the nationalism correlation that by itself tells a very poor story.
I thank Alberto for having managed above that matter in a very complete way.

You mentioned the " conspiracy theorem " but I remind you what you did answer to my 3 direct questions ( the PoW retreat at 06:13, the Y turret jamming before the retreat, and the 2 heavy cruiser distance during the battle of around 15 sea miles ) to you about it :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=705#p80408

I thought it was a closed matter from your side too, after your answers, because that is what is all about the " conspiracy theorem " and I read your agreement about the data having being " modified " with your 3 answers : NO.
Of course you did answer NO, because no other answers are possible given the available evidence we have on 2018.

Am I missing something here ?

Moving to the last argument in discussion, ... the Bismarck received hit on the bow, ...

Just as I was expecting, ... still no evidence and no explanations, ... no drawings that can be used by us all to try to realize what the " theory " of the " from aft of the beam incoming bow hit " should have been received by the Bismarck.

No correlations with the Bismarck course and timing, with the PoW gunnery plot or with the Prinz Eugen original battle map, with the available photos or with the PG film.

Nothing at all, ... just some generic words, ... while " you are calling yourself out " as we can read, ... with some very generic statements.

I have no problems with it and the call stand with my drawing that is perfectly correlated with all the above mentioned evidence we do have and with my published battle map.

When I will see something more from your side, ... I will comment accordingly.

From what I am reading I think I can anticipate that it will be something I will completely disagree about :

My observations are that although over the majority of the action with the British, the angle of approach would have been for the most part forward of the bow -- that's a trivial observation -- the descriptions of the physical evidence suggests -- although admittedly somewhat obliquely (no pun intended) -- that the projectile in question actually approached from aft of the beam. My diagram in the upcoming Bismarck book marks the angle of approach, I feel appropriately, as 'approximate'.

I do not feel that physical evidence, photographic or otherwise, is sufficiently strong to permit one to make reach any certain conclusions regarding the position and/or attribution of entrance and/or exit holes. The surviving anecdotal reports are, in my opinion, insufficiently detailed and consistent to determine the approach angle with certainty, leaving one with nothing much more satisfying than a 'most probable' solution. Other honest and intelligent men might disagree, but cannot -- again in my opinion -- disagree with certainty.

I think that the evidence that we do have today are strong enough to eliminate with a more that a reasonable certainty that the hit could have come from aft the bow, ... and in the opposite the evidence we do have can confirm with a very high degree of certainty that the hit came from forward the beam, ... from the bow.

I wait your book to comment further more about it based on what I will see.

Bye Antonio

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Thorsten Wahl,

above you have been so kind to do the work anticipating everybody about the second received hit ( according to Matrose Lorenzen account ) by the Bismarck at midship on the port side on the compartments XIV and XIII as you explained and also showed us in a very precise graphic view.

May I ask you a favour so everybody can benefit from both your competence as well as from your German native language and add evidence on their records ?

The request is very simple, can you translate from German to English for us all the Brennecke book description of the hit Nr 2 ( treffer 2 ) ?

I mean this one :

BS_24_May_Treffer_Nr_2_E_Werk_Kesselraum.jpg (112.88 KiB) Viewed 691 times

Of course I thank you in advance for your kind and nice help you may provide us all here on this forum.


Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

I'm personally very hurt you left "Attack Poodle" out of your list. But as I posted before.

An arrogant attack dog who can't take the odd kick in the teeth should give up the role, not whimper like a pathetic whipped cur.

If there is any reporting to the webmaster to be done it should be for ludicrous observations like -assumed numbers can be converted into real numbers by dividing by four.

Not to mention the self congratulatory crowing over damaging this website's reputation:

He has been left alone even by his bunch of ignorant insulting hooligans, after they were rubbished one after the other, some of them fairly recognizing their errors, most of them cowardly disappearing after having made fools of themselves.

over apparently driving off valuable posters like Byron Angel, Cag, Alan Raven, Paul Cadogan with a sustained barrage of insults and name-calling and we also don't even see the likes of Tommy 303 any more. Even Bill Jurens has apparently decided that having dismissed the so-called "evidence" of the Conspiracy Theorists there is little point in him remaining here, with the threat of being branded "ill-educated".

To which we can add the recent bragging about deliberately "trolling" which is a fishing technique exactly as gleefully described (and nothing to do with Norse mythology).

If Mr Jurens identifies the majority of transgressions as coming from you and Antonio, well his experience as Moderator on Web Forums, enables him to do this dispassionately.

Antonio tramlined him with questions phrased to allow only YES/NO answers suitable for his purposes:

I thought it was a closed matter from your side too, after your answers, because that is what is all about the " conspiracy theorem " and I read your agreement about the data having being " modified " with your 3 answers : NO.

His explanation via the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" analogy was perfect. Being drawn into detailed arguments and supplying material he will very shortly publish in what will be a valuable (in contrast to others) new book on the subject, does not suit him. It probably indicates he does not wish to have his opinions rubbished and be branded an ill-educated, ignorant foolish hooligan for merely indentifying all the myriad errors in the Conspiracy theorists' maps, timetables and assertions of cowardice, lying under oath and cover-up.


All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

shameless how this poor hooligan (feeling hurt... ) is left without any argument to counter evidences (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=90#p80907) than whimpering and cowardly trying to get support from others....

Wadinga wrote: "If Mr Jurens identifies the majority of transgressions as coming from you and Antonio, well his experience as Moderator on Web Forums, enables him to do this dispassionately. "

...I have said that if he did such a mistake, my hope is he did it ONLY because he has had no time to look at who insulted first, who mocked first, who laughed at a tragedy first, who used anti-nationalistic insinuations first (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=90#p80907), etc... and who finally got what he fully deserves lately, like Mr.Wadinga.

Now, after having been provoked several times, I feel free to insult this bunch of hooligans (see links above) as much as I like and I'm ready to add names to this black list too !


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

Just for the records, ... Mr Bill Jurens did confirm from his side also the Board of Inquiry and the Court Martial threat, ... that exactly like the other points, ... no one can refute to admit and confirm given the evidence we have today available.

Ohpss, .... in reality some " hooligan/deniers " still can refute it, ... but that tells the whole situation by itself ...

It is enough to go back and find his related post.

Like it or not ... those are the irrefutable facts.

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

...I have said that if he did such a mistake, my hope is he did it ONLY because he has had no time to look at who insulted first, who mocked first, who laughed at a tragedy first, who used anti-nationalistic insinuations first (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=90#p80907), etc... and who finally got what he fully deserves lately, like Mr.Wadinga.

Now, after having been provoked several times, I feel free to insult this bunch of hooligans (see links above) as much as I like and I'm ready to add names to this black list too !

Another cultural difference seems to surface. In Germany the usage of "der hat aber angefangen" ("he started first") as justifiaction usually ends not later than puberty. Therefore it sounds to my German ears somewhat childish. You should be aware of that circumstance.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you are probably right about the possible cultural differences.

However, … when someone after having started first, … keeps on doing it at any possible occasion especially when left with no arguments and cornered, … then it becomes something you cannot avoid to reply to.

The forum thread's and post's are all here to be read by everybody as evidence.

We just kept an immense patience until a certain point, ... but enough is enough and after a while, ... you have to reply otherwise you are allowing them to increase their attitude to be arrogantly provocative and freely offend you as happened.

The last occurrence about the Italian bridge tragedy event and our nationality to prove all I am stating.

This is not something I will tolerate anymore and I will reply to everything adding the due interest, ... as long as they are not providing their excuses and consequently we can all stop doing it.

If they will continue, … we will keep on returning fire, ... that is for sure, ... while I personally hope that this unfair attitude will soon stop and we can all restore this forum fair attitude like it was in the past before 2013 and the Article of War thread.

In this regard I obviously ask also to you, ... been a German native language and competent person, ... the translation of the Brennecke treffer Nr 2 statements above, ... the ones I invited Thorsten Wahl to translate for everybody benefit and knowledge.

More, since I saw you participated on the discussion of the hit with the deck's and reports information, ... I would like very much to have your personal opinion and view about what we are discussing and the direction from where the PoW shells entered the Bismarck hull ( aft or forward the beam ) and which compartments have been hit at first and what was the path of the shell inside the ship.

You know I like to have your opinion, ... and I was waiting for you to show up.

I hope that from now on we will all STOP the personal fighting and we will go back on trying to re-construct history and this battle events only.

From my side I put my hand forward immediately to everybody, ... being the first one doing it, ... hoping everybody else will agree and declare a similar intention from now on.

That will be enough ... I think, ...

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

Your latest attempt to tramline Bill Jurens with heavily loaded/slanted questions started right after he posted a lengthy statement of his position ending with:

I hope that this rather lengthy diatribe will adequately summarize my position. Regarding the thesis of Mssrs Bonomi and Virtuani etc., I can only say that although I do appreciate that a good deal of their analysis of the actions themselves is valuable in detail, and their efforts in that regard commendable, I cannot agree – at least in broad principles – with their conclusions that some sort of grand ‘cover-up’ was undertaken to somehow obliterate and/or obscure the cowardice, etc. of any members of the Royal Navy.

See viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=79153#p79153 or page 133 of the Court Martial thread.


Why are you asking Thorsten to re-interpret the interpretation of Brennecke, when we already have access to what is probably the only source material available to anyone, either in 1941 or today ie the survivor statements? By all means ask for a second opinion on Ulrich's translation of original survivor statements if you have them. You asked Thorsten before where the lines he drew on Bismarck plans came from, and you have received no answer. He said they were his visualisations. So you ask a different question to gloss over that it is likely his lines are the same as your lines. Made-up, imagined, fabricated. In your case to support your distorted thesis and eliminate the obvious fact that the film was shot early in the engagement before Hood was sunk. .

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Herr Nilsson wrote: " In Germany the usage of ..."he started first"... as justifiaction usually ends not later than puberty. Therefore it sounds to my German ears somewhat childish. "

but in Itlay we say "Chi pecora si fa, il lupo se la mangia" ("the wolf eat who behave as a sheep"). As the insults were NEVER retired and excuses were not made, the bunch of hooligans will be treated as they asked for...

Cultural difference ? I don't think so!


Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga trolled again the forum writing nonsense: "the obvious fact that the film was shot early in the engagement before Hood was sunk"

Mr.Wadinga feels no shame in ignoring the FACT that Bismarck could not be on course 270° at ANY time between 5:55:30 and 6:00:30 as irrefutably demonstrated by photo NH69722 and by the PoW salvo plot (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=930#p80769).

He possibly hopes that repeating again and again his fantasies will make them true, but this is only the evidence of how desperate he is for having been defeated in his sacred crusade to save the honor of Leach and Wake-Walker, trying to deny the basic known facts.

Stop blah-blah, I wait for his new invented map explaining how Bismarck could get the bow hit from aft, after he tried recently with two of them all blatantly WRONG.


Bye, Alberto