Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
referring to Mr.Wadinga post above (I hope that the two listed issues are the very last doubts from him re. OS1...) : viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=225#p81563

issue 1) the first sighting of the enemy was at 05:35 (Leach account) when a young (18) sailor, that had been sent up to the mast (ref.Kennedy), saw a "large vessel".
The message sent at 05:37 speaks about one ship, bearing 334° distance 17 sm (wrong, they were almost 20 sm at that hour).
Now, the crow nest of PoW is almost 35 meters high over the sea level and the small platform below the radar is almost 45 meters high. BS and PG tops could be seen from there when 25 miles away, with theoretical unlimited visibility. When at 20 sm, their superstructure would be visible almost entirely from such a high observation point.

In this case the earth curvature affect very little the PoW "sighting", as visibility that day was just good, not exceptional and (obviously) not unlimited. Actually, it was around 18-20 sm max ("mirage" apart). Therefore it is only logical to assume that the first vessel to be seen was the closest (by 2 km) one, not the biggest. Therefore, 334° is most probably referred to PG (assuming it referred to BS, will make the battlefield even smaller, as Mr.Wadinga can verify drawing his own map...).

After quite some minutes PoW spotters were able to see two ships (another sighting report for 2 vessels was made at 05:44, with bearing 335°) and at this point the bigger can look bigger (as per Leach account and possibly for Brooke too), not at 5:35, when the closer is seen surely before the more distant (still in the "haze").



issue 2) the turn is marked just before 5:55, we can explain the delay of Y turret to open fire by assuming that: 1) the turn was delayed (for unknown reasons...) until 5:57; 2) it was executed very slowly (not to disrupt gunnery) and terminated at 5:57 or 3) it was actually executed at 5:55 as per all maps and Leach account (with Y turret not opening fire yet to avoid self-inflicted damage firing at high elevation over her own aft superstructure, while range was not yet found anyway), but all these are "speculations" as well as Mr.Wadinga's imaginary hit on Hood signal bridge.


Bye, Alberto
"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)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

Considering the virulent criticism you have heaped upon Kennedy's excellent account, it is entertaining to see you use him as your source.

the first sighting of the enemy was at 05:35 (Leach account) when a young (18) sailor, that had been sent up to the mast (ref.Kennedy), saw a "large vessel".

Kennedy's seaman's eye for accurate detail and his thorough interrogation of the veterans who were there aboard PoW, tell us it was "Knocker White" who went up to the masthead. He does not mention the gyrocompass hanging round his neck but only "glasses". Therefore he could not give an accurate bearing, only the forward Director Control Tower could.

I really can't be bothered to retype Brooke detailed account of seeing the individual components of Bismarck's upperworks climbing over the horizon. We have all read it, we can all access it. There is no "haze", this is a product of imagination .

Brooke looking through his high power binoculars spends a whole paragraph describing the shape of Bismarck's mast and superstructure rising before PG is even at all visible. The target sighted and therefore the bearing clearly relates to Bismarck, and Antonio's tracks must be therefore be moved. How much depends on the contentious idea Bismarck was so far behind PG at first sighting. Estimates based on a photograph which may or may not show a Bismarck First Salvo, indicates she was maybe 3,000 astern of PG. Directly astern as Antonio has always contended.

If you want to claim PG was 2km closer to the British on her port beam, so as to imagine the British saw a 17,000 cruiser before a 45,000ton battleship...….
Therefore it is only logical to assume that the first vessel to be seen was the closest (by 2 km) one, not the biggest.
then you have to admit this photograph is incorrectly identified. Not to mention wrecking Antonio's claimed correlation of Bismarck's open fire range as you would have to subtract 2,000yds/m.

I have always thought "First Salvo" was incorrectly identified, as even with the claimed 100m per minute speed advantage that means half an hour to get as close to PG as the film and stills show, and there is less than 10 minutes to do it in if the film starts at 06:03 as is claimed.

Moving the tracks so PoW's sighting intercepts Bismarck's claimed position at the relevant time will throw out all the other bearing correlations. OS1 is not proven and the other faults in OS1 can then be addressed. Not the very last at all.

Aside from involvement in this OS1 fracas, I hope Bill has had some time to view the Bundesarchiv stills and the Schmalenbach film with a photogrammetrist's eye and make some estimates of how far apart the German ships are. Perhaps a new thread can be opened.


All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

Brooke surely saw the Bismarck after the first sighting, I have no problems about it.

The 05:37 bearing was between PoW and Prinz Eugen, ... as it is more than obvious, ... and will remain as it is.

At least it will on my map version for the moment, ... waiting further confirmation about it later on the common analysis.

You can obviously make your own version of it for your analysis with your evaluations.

After some more future analysis it will be easy to verify which of the two versions is the exact one.

The only part of that map that needs some adjustment is the BC1 turns shape and their exact timing, not the overall result and positions ( start and end for PoW ).

The rest is correct as it is, ... and the geometry ( bearings ), course and speed clearly demonstrate it, ... quite easily and well.

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 )
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "If you want to claim PG was 2km closer to the British on her port beam, so as to imagine the British saw a 17,000 cruiser before a 45,000ton battleship...….then you have to admit this photograph is incorrectly identified."
Why on earth ? Has this reasoning any common sense ? Has Mr.Wadinga noted that we speak about 5:37 and not 5:55 ?
Of course with her delta speed BS was much more distant from PG 18 minutes before then she was at open fire....

A pity that even these 2 "issues" failed to counter OS1, but unfortunately I'm quite confident he will find another story to avoid to accept it.


Bye, Alberto
"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)
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

Once again, I will remind correspondents to please not editorialize. There is no need -- nor is there any utility -- in stating or implying that other correspondents are somehow stupid, stubborn, or in possession of some agenda which they wish to push forward at the expense of historical accuracy.

For example, we might take Mr. Vituani's last post, and ask what is actually being lost by omitting the material in red.

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "If you want to claim PG was 2km closer to the British on her port beam, so as to imagine the British saw a 17,000 cruiser before a 45,000ton battleship...….then you have to admit this photograph is incorrectly identified."

Why on earth ? Has this reasoning any common sense ? Has Mr.Wadinga noted that we speak about 5:37 and not 5:55 ?
Of course with her delta speed BS was much more distant from PG 18 minutes before then she was at open fire....

A pity that even these 2 "issues" failed to counter OS1, but unfortunately I'm quite confident he will find another story to avoid to accept it.

Bye, Alberto

This is not to suggest that others are not guilty of similar innuendo and accusation -- there is, or at least has been -- enough of this to go around on all sides in the past. So, although I am using Mr. Virtuani's memo as an example, I am certainly not attempting to single him out for special treatment. I simply took his post as the most recent example. All of us should really try to omit such sorts of commentary in the future.

Back to other issues:

Someone asked if photogrammetric evaluation might be of utility. The short answer is yes, but the material has to be approached in a thorough and professional way. There are two types of photography involved, namely still photography, and motion-picture photography. Although ideally separate, these are in the Denmark Strait action somewhat interleaved insofar as it appears that at least some of the still photography represents enlargements of individual frames from the motion picture sequences.

So far as still photography is concerned, it appears that the original negatives, which would be required for a proper analysis, have disappeared. The resultant images, which have been irregularly cropped, manipulated in the darkroom, quite possibly enhanced in various ways for publication, and often simply reproductions of 'screened' material that has gone through a printing press, are of relatively little analytical value.

The film negatives, or positive prints fromthe film negatives have survived, and these are of much more potential value. An examination of the original film provides two things. First, 'frame counting' provides a fairly reliable method of comparing time sequences, at least if one is satisfied in assuming that the camera(s) were running at essentially the same frame rates throughout. If one knows what the frame rates were -- this is much less certain when silent film was being exposed, as is likely the case here -- one can, of course 'count frames' in order to establish duration as well. Unfortunately, this cannot be done with material that has been converted for television or internet viewing -- there is, usually, far much to much technical 'jiggery-pokery' going on in most circumstances to allow a fully accurate transfer. Further, the material is usually cropped in order to fully fit the television or computer screen, meaning all useful photogrammetric information is usually lost.

The only real solution to this is to examine the original negatives, or obtain a film-format contact print. Unfortunately, the explosion of digital photographic techniques renders this is a much more difficult process than it once was because current scanners usually omit the edges of the exposed film frame and/or the sprocket holes. If a scan of the film is made which includes these items -- although I don't know who now would do this sort of thing -- then the film can indeed be used for photogrammetric purposes, because the film width gives a positive size measurement, meaning that the precise size of the image of the target on the negative can be measured as well. Once one knows the precise size of the image as projected on the negative and the focal length of the lens used for photography, then distance can (usually) be quickly determined via geometric means. This is by no means foolproof insofar as the marked focal lengths of cinema lenses are not (or perhaps more properly WERE not -- carefully measured insofar as a few millimeters difference made no practical difference in the projected image. But, so long as one is willing to accept some reasonable limits for frame rate -- and the film may well have been 'undercranked' at Denmark Strait in order to allow reasonable exposure times, which would make everything appear to be going faster -- and wiling to accept some reasonable variation, about 2% would be typical, in the actual vs the advertised focal length of the camera lens, one can at least in principle, extract a fair amount of information from the film. The trick here is to obtain a copy of the actual film with the sprocket holes intact...

I hope the above is useful and perhaps even interesting. Again, I want to emphasis that my criticism of Alberto's comment above is not directed at him individually, as others have -- at least at times -- written things which are equally, or perhaps even more, inflammatory.

Best from Winnipeg...

Bill Jurens.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 6:33 pm
The message sent at 05:37 speaks about one ship, bearing 334° distance 17 sm (wrong, they were almost 20 sm at that hour).
Sorry, I've lost track. Why 20 sm?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello Mr.Jurens,

I'm very disappointed that once again (it's not the first time by now) you mention only me in order to ask for a more moderate debate, despite the disclaimer:
you wrote: " Again, I want to emphasis that my criticism of Alberto's comment above is not directed at him individually,"
If this was true, why didn't you react to someone writing totally worthless posts like viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=240#p81586 just to provoke, or jumping in a discussion after having been silent for weeks with pure provocation viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=240#p81590 and no value at all, or finally to someone (Mr.Wadinga) whose attitude is to throw on the table his "issues" (?) and then to run away when they are demonstrated wrong, changing argument by inventing other "issues" ?

I'm very disappointed by your attitude as moderator, because you seem to be only interested in "civilized" tones but you tolerate subtle provocation and, what is worse, you allow people not interested in progressing (but just preventing any agreement to go on with their tactics) to play their blatant low game.
I have to suspect by now that you are not "super-partes" as required to a moderator.

So said, I will be happy to submit to any decision the webmaster will take upon me based on your "ad personam" repeated "warnings " but I will never accept that discussion is baseless or provocative without reacting (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8347&p=81324&hilit=moderator#p81324).


Bye, Alberto
"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)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Herr Nilsson wrote: "Why 20 sm?"
I have written "almost" 20...
By ruler on OS1, following Antonio's invitation to use the large maps he alone has posted.


Bye, Alberto
"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)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

now that I have posted the complete and readable map with the initial milestone, ... even in high scale in details, ... it is enough to measure.

Mathematics and geometry ( bearings ) will allow to measure the correct distance between the PoW and the PG at 05:37 at the first sight.

The distance you will measure at 05:37 was more than 19 sea miles between PoW and PG ( one large vessel ).

The bearings are correct and cannot be toward the Bismarck, ... that was way back ( around 2.500 meters back ) and with at least other 3 to 4 degrees higher ( 337° to 338° ) on that moment, ... still out of the PoW visibility.

Bismarck was seen and identified later on and in fact the next 2 radio messages from Hood ( 05:43 ) and PoW ( 05:44 ) reported 2 vessels and not only one, ... and the clear statement of one cruiser and one battleship.

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 )
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Herr Nilsson »

@Alberto and Antonio

Thank you. Now I see. However, my ruler says ~18.8 sm. That would match Leach's statement of 38,000 yard.
Last edited by Herr Nilsson on Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,

my ruler says 19,1 sm... but a precise distance is totally irrelevant in this "bearings" discussion, surely the message estimation of 17 sm was wrong.


Bye, Alberto
"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)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

We know where the inaccurate estimate of 17 miles comes from. From the inaccurately positioned Suffolk's track and hence Bismarck's relative position, as plotted aboard PoW, placing both ships closer to PoW than they really were. Because it is wrong, we know any guesstimates of Suffolk (and Norfolk's) positions based on PoW's flawed plotting will be incorrect too.

For Antonio:

I cannot see that there is any evidence to support this statement/assertion:
The 05:37 bearing was between PoW and Prinz Eugen, ... as it is more than obvious, ... and will remain as it is.
I can't see that the aspect ratio has changed at all when Brooke describes with tremendous clarity seeing Bismarck before Prinz Eugen evens appears. The British were just before the port beam so Prinz Eugen, however far ahead of the flagship, was not significantly closer along the line of sighting, than Bismarck. The bearing of 335T therefore obviously refers to the larger vessel.

McMullen concurs that Bismarck was obviously much bigger (and therefore was visible first). From his letter:
I remember Skipwith and I discussing the leading ship, and either he or I said "Looks like Strasburg" in other word "Prince Eugen" looked like a "big ship" but "Bismarck" even at that range looked much bigger, hence our disregard of Hood's original concentration signal to engage the "left hand ship".
All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,

another unsupported speculation regarding the origin of 17 sm estimation, simply done when ships were too far to get a range from any equipment...

Regarding Leach, Brooke and McMullen accounts, that I personally trust, it is clear that the 2 ships could be compared in size when they were both visible (after 05:44), while White saw one ship only (at 05:35), logically the closer, not the bigger because visibility was only allowing a 18-20 sm observation and BS was around 2 km more distant than PG from PoW at that time.
Possibly Mr.Wadinga missed the explanation...or just ignored it, as usual, when inconvenient for him....viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=255#p81602.
The real question is whether the 335° bearing transmitted at 05:44 is referred to BS and PG. Answer is quite simple looking at geometry, course and speed of the ships, while the 334° transmitted at 05:37 is surely referred to PG.


As easily predictable, we are still waiting a proposed alternative OS1 from Mr.Wadinga, accomodating all the speculations he has thrown on the table since months now, but I still see nothing from him except critics, to carefully avoid to accept Antonio's OS1 viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=225#p81563 .


Bye, Alberto
"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)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

I went back from my first set of OS1 bearings ( 4 of them ) to a more easy to verify and accept elementary map of 4 points milestones that I have provided also in large scale for easy verification.

Anybody with a ruler can verify course and speed, the whole distance covered by both squadrons, German and BC1 warships.

The 4 milestone points are out of official documentation, so very easy to verify them too.

The discussion about the 05:37 PoW bearing going to Bismarck instead of having identified the Prinz Eugen is a pure waste of time.

It is enough to go back from PG at 06:00 on bearing 323° from PoW ( opposite of 143° ) for 23 minutes at 27 knots and we are perfectly on bearing 334° from the PoW at 05:37, as my map clearly demonstrate also in the graphic format.

If we take the Bismarck at 06:00 position, she was on bearing 330°-329° from the PoW ( PoW gunnery plot and Rowell map to demonstrate it ) and if we just apply the same course back for 23 minutes even at only 27 knots like the Prinz Eugen ( while we know that the Bismarck sailed faster than Prinz Eugen by looking at photos and films ) we are way back from the bearing 334° from the PoW at 05:37.

Anyone can verify it with a simple ruler and a protractor/goniometer on my provided map above.

Consequently, can we stop this useless debate about which ship was identified at 05:37 from the PoW being on bearing 334° from her after having done this very easy geometrical verification on my provided map ?
The ship can only be the Prinz Eugen, and please verify it yourself now, it is more than easy.

I patiently wait everybody verification and the agreement about the 4 provided milestones.

I simply cannot provide anything more simple than this base map to start this work.

If we are not able to agree about this one, ... I think it is better to stop any effort about it.

Thanks for the productive cooperation.

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 )
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

My apologies to Mr. Virtuani if he feels that he has been unfairly singled out for criticism. Again, although I used his particular post as an example, there was no specific intention to concentrate on his comments to the exclusion of some comments by others. Certainly others have been guilty as well. Having made his statements, I can only hope that he (and others as appropriate) will refrain from 'ad hominem' arguments and provocative language in the future. Though they may make the writer feel better, except in truly unusual circumstances these sorts of approaches rarely move the discussions forward. Read first, remove inflammatory or potentially offensive material, and post later. If Mr. Virtuani (or others) feel they are subject to personal attack, then if pressed I will take appropriate action. If he (or others) feel that their IDEAS are being put in question -- so long as that is being done in a respectful and reasonable way -- then I feel that's really just part of the productive discussion. Discussion, not argument.

In that regard, I'm gratified to see that subsequent posts -- though they have sometimes contained tones of frustration (which is probably unavoidable) -- seem to be progressing in a fairly productive, though perhaps slower-than-desired, manner. Good science, like good food, sometimes takes a long time to prepare.

I hope to be able to post some fairly generic geometry over the next day or so which might enable us to attack some of the geometric issues with a bit more clarity. If, early in the action, we can establish relative positions at some time 'A' with some reliability, and if we can agree on courses and speeds for both parties for some time thereafter, then the entire action can be solved directly via extrapolation. As it's unlikely that we have or can obtain precise figures for either courses, speeds, or a set of initial positions, and because extrapolation is almost always a somewhat speculative procedure, it would be very desirable to check the extrapolation by seeing how close it comes to matching a set of equally reliable set of relative positions at time 'B'. My basic idea would be to try to find the relative positions at time 'A' via a set of observations such as OS1. If we can agree with subsequent courses and speeds, we can then check the geometry via a second set of observations, which we might call OS2, taken some time later. This process, if it can be completed successfully, should provide a reasonably firm skeleton upon which further detail might be added.

All here have something to add to the discussions, usually something valuable. If we can approach this as a cooperative effort, rather than a competitivee one, we should be able to make some further progress, or at least -- as Antonio has suggested -- establish that a consensus amongst honest and intelligent men is impossible. Consensus, even conditional consensus, is better...

Let's keep going...

Best from here...

Bill Jurens.
Post Reply