Hits on PoW and Bismarck
Moderator: Bill Jurens
- Alberto Virtuani
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
- Location: Milan (Italy)
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
...necessarily, on 230° still 10° from forward the beam, on 235° still 5°from forward the beam....
...PG map wrong, PoW salvo plot wrong... I don't think so, but fantasy is unlimited.
...was the film taken in the Baltic ?
...PG map wrong, PoW salvo plot wrong... I don't think so, but fantasy is unlimited.
...was the film taken in the Baltic ?
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
...err...no...Alberto Virtuani wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:11 am ...necessarily, on 230° still 10° from forward the beam, on 235° still 5°from forward the beam....
...PG map wrong, PoW salvo plot wrong... I don't think so, but fantasy is unlimited.
...was the film taken in the Baltic ?
...either..or...
...no...
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
- Alberto Virtuani
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
- Location: Milan (Italy)
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
very clearly, no-answer at all, as usual:
...with Bismarck on 220° and PoW guns aiming 330°, the entry angle is 20° from forward the beam (with 230° is 10° froward).....Geometry.
...which one?... Let's try to be serious and not to deny the evidences.
...when and where?
I don't think this is a productive way to discuss, but deniers' strategy varies from person to person. At the end of the day, the only precise reconstruction is Antonio's one.
...with Bismarck on 220° and PoW guns aiming 330°, the entry angle is 20° from forward the beam (with 230° is 10° froward).....Geometry.
...which one?... Let's try to be serious and not to deny the evidences.
...when and where?
I don't think this is a productive way to discuss, but deniers' strategy varies from person to person. At the end of the day, the only precise reconstruction is Antonio's one.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
Alberto, you have asked just two questions and I've answered them the way you usually like it (yes/no). So why are you mocking and laughing at me the whole time?
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
Alberto, I find it somewhat difficult to answer correctly when you're editing your post.
Anyway, speaking of
Anyway, speaking of
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
Gentlemen,
While not wishing to even attempt to counter the arguments that have been put forward by those far more knowledgeable than myself, i do have another question for you.When a ship is in battle and being fired upon it would be zig-zagging to some extent to steer towards the last shell splash, presumably on the assumption that the ship firing at them will have altered the position of its guns to counteract the miss, therefore, would this have made a difference to the angle of the shell hit and the angle of the ship firing it?
While not wishing to even attempt to counter the arguments that have been put forward by those far more knowledgeable than myself, i do have another question for you.When a ship is in battle and being fired upon it would be zig-zagging to some extent to steer towards the last shell splash, presumably on the assumption that the ship firing at them will have altered the position of its guns to counteract the miss, therefore, would this have made a difference to the angle of the shell hit and the angle of the ship firing it?
- Alberto Virtuani
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
- Location: Milan (Italy)
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
@Herr Nilsson: very clearly, no-answer at all, as usual:
...with Bismarck on 220° and PoW guns aiming 330°, the entry angle is 20° from forward the beam (with 230° is 10° froward).....Geometry. ANSWER?
...which one?... Let's try to be serious and not to deny the evidences. ANSWER ?
...when and where? Ok, I see what Mr.Nilsson fantasy invented now, the same perspective can be drawn with Bismarck on 270° and PG behind her port beam as per Antonio's map from 6:03:30 and 6:05, respecting evidences. Timing and courses of Bismarck in your proposed interpretation of the film, please !
I don't think this is a productive way to discuss, but deniers' strategy varies from person to person. At the end of the day, the only precise reconstruction is Antonio's one, as this guy is clearly unwilling (unable I would say) to show us his complete reconstruction.
...with Bismarck on 220° and PoW guns aiming 330°, the entry angle is 20° from forward the beam (with 230° is 10° froward).....Geometry. ANSWER?
...which one?... Let's try to be serious and not to deny the evidences. ANSWER ?
...when and where? Ok, I see what Mr.Nilsson fantasy invented now, the same perspective can be drawn with Bismarck on 270° and PG behind her port beam as per Antonio's map from 6:03:30 and 6:05, respecting evidences. Timing and courses of Bismarck in your proposed interpretation of the film, please !
I don't think this is a productive way to discuss, but deniers' strategy varies from person to person. At the end of the day, the only precise reconstruction is Antonio's one, as this guy is clearly unwilling (unable I would say) to show us his complete reconstruction.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
Please, don't blame me for that you're editing your posts. I had hoped my drawings would help you to understand.
That is still no question.Alberto Virtuani wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:57 am @Herr Nilsson: very clearly, no-answer at all, as usual:
...with Bismarck on 220° and PoW guns aiming 330°, the entry angle is 20° from forward the beam (with 230° is 10° froward).....Geometry. ANSWER?
As I said either PG's map is wrong or PoW's salvo plot.Alberto Virtuani wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:57 am ...which one?... Let's try to be serious and not to deny the evidences. ANSWER ?
As I said it's my working hypothesis. However, I think the pictures were taken between about 06:03 and 06:05. And no, the same perspective can't be drawn with Bismarck on 270°.Alberto Virtuani wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:57 am ...when and where? Ok, I see, the same perspective can be drawn with Bismarck on 270° and PG behind her port beam as per Antonio's map from 6:03:30 and 6:05. Timing and courses of Bismarck in your proposed interpretation of the film, please !
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
- Alberto Virtuani
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
- Location: Milan (Italy)
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
Yes, they are questions:
Is there an agreement that with Bismarck on 220° and PoW guns aiming 330°, the entry angle is 20° from forward the beam (with 230° is 10° froward)?. ANSWER?
"Either ...or..." is not an answer: ...which one is wrong ?... ANSWER ?
Yes, the same images can be taken with Bismarck on 270°. The speculation of Mr.Nilsson that Bismarck never turned away due to the torpedo alarm is worth the one of Mr.Wadinga, that she was always on 270° since 5:55.....
Anyway, each person is allowed to have his theory, crazy as it can be: good luck for demonstrating (and publishing) it.
Is there an agreement that with Bismarck on 220° and PoW guns aiming 330°, the entry angle is 20° from forward the beam (with 230° is 10° froward)?. ANSWER?
"Either ...or..." is not an answer: ...which one is wrong ?... ANSWER ?
Yes, the same images can be taken with Bismarck on 270°. The speculation of Mr.Nilsson that Bismarck never turned away due to the torpedo alarm is worth the one of Mr.Wadinga, that she was always on 270° since 5:55.....
Anyway, each person is allowed to have his theory, crazy as it can be: good luck for demonstrating (and publishing) it.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
- Herr Nilsson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
@Alberto
If you are right in regard of
If you‘re right then the second answer is that both can be right, if not, one of then has very likely to be wrong. In my opinion the salvo Plot.
If you are right in regard of
then the first answer is yes, if not, then no.Alberto Virtuani wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:14 am Yes, the same images can be taken with Bismarck on 270°. The speculation of Mr.Nilsson that Bismarck never turned away due to the torpedo alarm is worth the one of Mr.Wadinga, that she was always on 270° since 5:55.....
If you‘re right then the second answer is that both can be right, if not, one of then has very likely to be wrong. In my opinion the salvo Plot.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
- Alberto Virtuani
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
- Location: Milan (Italy)
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
Crystal clear answers to my (possibly too difficult) questions, showing Mr.Nilsson total confusion....
Luckily, Antonio's battlemap gives a view how this battle developed, instead of the crazy fantasies of the deniers.
Main turrets are trained well aft in this photo, no doubts about this fact, if a person knows a bit how Bismarck turrets were shaped.... therefore Bismarck is going away on course around 270° due to the torpedo alarm.
Luckily, Antonio's battlemap gives a view how this battle developed, instead of the crazy fantasies of the deniers.
Main turrets are trained well aft in this photo, no doubts about this fact, if a person knows a bit how Bismarck turrets were shaped.... therefore Bismarck is going away on course around 270° due to the torpedo alarm.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
Hello Alberto,
Thank you for posting again:
"Text information that was originally on or with the picture".
All the best
wadinga
Thank you for posting again:
"Text information that was originally on or with the picture".
Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1968-015-12
Eine der letzten Granaten der "Hood", die über Prinz Eugen hinwegheulend als Weitschüsse in die See fuhren. Im Hintergrund Bismarck.
Foto Lagemann
All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
- Alberto Virtuani
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3605
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
- Location: Milan (Italy)
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
Hello everybody,
apparently Mr.Wadinga is unable to follow a discussion, just jumping in at any possible (in his mind) way out: he is back now with captions after his ridiculous defeat about the course of Bismarck...
There is no doubt (as stated by Mr.Jurens viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=135#p80975 whom Mr.Wadinga trusts blindly viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=30#p80826 but mostly as demonstrated by the PoW salvo plot) that Bismarck was on course around 220° for the whole time Hood was afloat. This is mathematically demonstrated by her closure rate vs PoW.
Even Mr.Nilsson, who already changed his mind several times (e.g.viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=210#p68400 and viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=150#p80997, where 230° will make things worse than 220°, of course), after having recently theorized that the shells we see landing close to Bismarck in the film were from salvo 17 and 18 viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&p=79877#p79880, is now admitting that the pictures (and consequently the film) were taken between 6:03 and 6:05 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=165#p81007), thus the splashes are from the PoW locally controlled salvos because salvo 18 lands at 6:02:10....
Apparently the deniers are all extremely CONFUSED by now, in their desperate attempt to find another truth than Antonio's one, not so bitter for them. I would suggest them to study Antonio's reconstruction to find all answers to their questions, finally making peace with themselves, instead of posting nonsense that they are unable to substantiate.
Bye, Alberto
apparently Mr.Wadinga is unable to follow a discussion, just jumping in at any possible (in his mind) way out: he is back now with captions after his ridiculous defeat about the course of Bismarck...
There is no doubt (as stated by Mr.Jurens viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=135#p80975 whom Mr.Wadinga trusts blindly viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=30#p80826 but mostly as demonstrated by the PoW salvo plot) that Bismarck was on course around 220° for the whole time Hood was afloat. This is mathematically demonstrated by her closure rate vs PoW.
Even Mr.Nilsson, who already changed his mind several times (e.g.viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=210#p68400 and viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=150#p80997, where 230° will make things worse than 220°, of course), after having recently theorized that the shells we see landing close to Bismarck in the film were from salvo 17 and 18 viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&p=79877#p79880, is now admitting that the pictures (and consequently the film) were taken between 6:03 and 6:05 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8329&start=165#p81007), thus the splashes are from the PoW locally controlled salvos because salvo 18 lands at 6:02:10....
Apparently the deniers are all extremely CONFUSED by now, in their desperate attempt to find another truth than Antonio's one, not so bitter for them. I would suggest them to study Antonio's reconstruction to find all answers to their questions, finally making peace with themselves, instead of posting nonsense that they are unable to substantiate.
Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
- Antonio Bonomi
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3799
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
- Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
Hello everybody,
finally we seem to have something to start referring to and to work with, … very good.
Thanks to Herr Nilsson for having posted his current opinion about how it went, and for having confirmed the validity of the Prinz Eugen own track on her battle map, … as obvious, ... and for having used it as the correct reference to show in relation to it the Bismarck course according to his current opinion.
I see according to him that Bismarck run that straight line on course 230° true, … depicted in RED.
Herr Nilsson also defined 2 milestones as well on his proposed map, … the 05:55 position of the Bismarck according to the photo NH69722 first salvo, and it is correct in my personal opinion, … as well as the position of the Bismarck last salvo at 06:09 in relation to the Prinz Eugen track, and it is correct as well in my personal opinion.
Does every body agree about it ? I hope so, … even R. Winklareth was in agreement about them, … so I do not expect surprises about it, … but you never know so that is why I am asking, …
Let see how that materialize on the geometrical figure on the tracks and on the relative bearings using the Prinz Eugen original track as agreed and the PoW battle map plan 4 I hope nobody will have problems with, … since it is an official document too.
For me it is a kid game to scale them and place them in the correct relative position one to the other.
Here we go :
We have the Bismarck positions ( 05:55 and 06:09 ) on the 2 RED dots and the PoW positions at the same battle time on the 2 GREEN dots.
Now please follow me on this easy geometrical calculation :
1) Bismarck on course 220° firing at Hood while the target was on bearing 155° was having her main guns trained 25°forward her beam at 05:55.
In fact 220 ( bow ) - 90 ( beam ) = 130 and to reach a 155° target you need to add 25° forward the beam.
2) Bismarck on course 220° firing at the PoW while the target was on bearing 130° was having her main guns exactly at her beam at 06:09 as for the above.
In fact 220 ( bow ) - 90 ( beam ) = 130° and you are right on the target at the beam with your main turrets.
In fact we can see the Bismarck firing her last salvo at 06:09 here :
We can take few degrees tolerance of course on my easy demonstration here, … since I am rounding the numbers a bit to make it easier for everybody to follow me on this one, … but they seems very close to the Bismarck beam to me.
Does everybody agrees about the above ? If not : why ?
Bye Antonio
finally we seem to have something to start referring to and to work with, … very good.
Thanks to Herr Nilsson for having posted his current opinion about how it went, and for having confirmed the validity of the Prinz Eugen own track on her battle map, … as obvious, ... and for having used it as the correct reference to show in relation to it the Bismarck course according to his current opinion.
I see according to him that Bismarck run that straight line on course 230° true, … depicted in RED.
Herr Nilsson also defined 2 milestones as well on his proposed map, … the 05:55 position of the Bismarck according to the photo NH69722 first salvo, and it is correct in my personal opinion, … as well as the position of the Bismarck last salvo at 06:09 in relation to the Prinz Eugen track, and it is correct as well in my personal opinion.
Does every body agree about it ? I hope so, … even R. Winklareth was in agreement about them, … so I do not expect surprises about it, … but you never know so that is why I am asking, …
Let see how that materialize on the geometrical figure on the tracks and on the relative bearings using the Prinz Eugen original track as agreed and the PoW battle map plan 4 I hope nobody will have problems with, … since it is an official document too.
For me it is a kid game to scale them and place them in the correct relative position one to the other.
Here we go :
We have the Bismarck positions ( 05:55 and 06:09 ) on the 2 RED dots and the PoW positions at the same battle time on the 2 GREEN dots.
Now please follow me on this easy geometrical calculation :
1) Bismarck on course 220° firing at Hood while the target was on bearing 155° was having her main guns trained 25°forward her beam at 05:55.
In fact 220 ( bow ) - 90 ( beam ) = 130 and to reach a 155° target you need to add 25° forward the beam.
2) Bismarck on course 220° firing at the PoW while the target was on bearing 130° was having her main guns exactly at her beam at 06:09 as for the above.
In fact 220 ( bow ) - 90 ( beam ) = 130° and you are right on the target at the beam with your main turrets.
In fact we can see the Bismarck firing her last salvo at 06:09 here :
We can take few degrees tolerance of course on my easy demonstration here, … since I am rounding the numbers a bit to make it easier for everybody to follow me on this one, … but they seems very close to the Bismarck beam to me.
Does everybody agrees about the above ? If not : why ?
Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
Re: Hits on PoW and Bismarck
Hello All,
Those with access to the best reproductions of this picture may be able to decide if they can see the muzzles of Anton and Caesar above the turret tops and whether they are pointing slightly to the right from this point of view. Then they may wonder why they can't actually see PoW or the prodigious clouds of smoke emitting from her, at the point where these guns are oriented, having apparently fired moments earlier.
Then they may wonder whether they are merely seeing the guns "emptied through the muzzles" in this picture at some indeterminate time, because the target should be in the picture and isn't.
Judging by the foreshortening, I would say Bismarck's course is closing on PG by 10-20 degrees in this picture, and therefore the turrets are pointing slightly aft.
Alberto, please treat us equally and criticise Antonio for relying on Lagemann's captions:
The only evidence it is the first salvo is the caption wording, the only evidence it happened at 05:55 is his interpretation of the PG KTB ambiguous wording.
Herr Nilsson, I regret I cannot agree with your estimate for Bismarck's course relative to Prinz Eugen since Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-061-27 for instance shows Prinz Eugen sailing at 90 degrees different course and cutting across Bismarck's bows whilst the flagship fires at the target on her port beam. Since PG's "useless and worthless" track map only shows her on this course after the battle, we may conclude the Gefechtskizze is seriously flawed and is not an accurate record of PG's course.
All the best
wadinga
Those with access to the best reproductions of this picture may be able to decide if they can see the muzzles of Anton and Caesar above the turret tops and whether they are pointing slightly to the right from this point of view. Then they may wonder why they can't actually see PoW or the prodigious clouds of smoke emitting from her, at the point where these guns are oriented, having apparently fired moments earlier.
Then they may wonder whether they are merely seeing the guns "emptied through the muzzles" in this picture at some indeterminate time, because the target should be in the picture and isn't.
Judging by the foreshortening, I would say Bismarck's course is closing on PG by 10-20 degrees in this picture, and therefore the turrets are pointing slightly aft.
Alberto, please treat us equally and criticise Antonio for relying on Lagemann's captions:
the 05:55 position of the Bismarck according to the photo NH69722 first salvo
The only evidence it is the first salvo is the caption wording, the only evidence it happened at 05:55 is his interpretation of the PG KTB ambiguous wording.
Herr Nilsson, I regret I cannot agree with your estimate for Bismarck's course relative to Prinz Eugen since Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-061-27 for instance shows Prinz Eugen sailing at 90 degrees different course and cutting across Bismarck's bows whilst the flagship fires at the target on her port beam. Since PG's "useless and worthless" track map only shows her on this course after the battle, we may conclude the Gefechtskizze is seriously flawed and is not an accurate record of PG's course.
All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"