PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Bill Jurens wrote: "British shooting at the beginning of the action was really quite bad"

Hi Mr.Jurens,
I respectfully disagree: Hood shooting was very bad but PoW initial shooting was absolutely acceptable, finding the range (without the radar providing it and despite an initial 1000 yards overestimation...) after only 3 minutes and 6 semi-salvos, while Bismarck and PG (we don't know whether they obtained a radar range at open fire) took 3 to 3,5 (BS) and 2 to 2,5 (PG) minutes to hit Hood for the first time. From Jasper we realize that it took 6 semi-salvos (2 vollsalve + 2 semi-salvos) to hit, therefore the same identical performance, even if PG opened fire at a shorter distance than PoW. BS hit quite later.

Only the hit rate of Germans was superior to PoW during the battle (luck or merit, we cannot know), with PoW hitting the enemy 3 times, PG hitting 5 times and BS hitting probably 5 times (however, Germans fired for more time in total) but much better than Hood's (0 hits in 8 minutes) anyway.
The absolute RoF of PoW was better than Bismarck's, her effective RoF was anyway comparable to Bismarck's one (as demonstrated since long time), and her effective number of delivered shells per minute was even better than Bismarck's.

Dunmunro wrote: " 4. No results were obtained from either Type 281 or 284 R.D.F.is a statement pertaining to the entire 1st engagement from enemy to sight to cease fire."

A good example of "interpretation" (Tovey was a master in "interpreting" the detailed reports to produce a better overall final report, please see 6:13 and "Y" turret jamming....) of what is written in the GAR. Points 3, 4 and 5 clearly refer to range acquisition and open fire. Does point 5 refers to the whole 1st engagement ?
I said I'm ready to accept that 284 did not provide ranges because the key point is that the set was anyway working.

Wadinga wrote: "It was defective, clear and simple, it provided no range"

If a gun can be fired but it does not hit the enemy, it's not defective.
The Type 284 set was not defective at all: it was working on board the Prince of Wales. It surely provided the opening ranges during the evening engagement. It simply had no time enough to warm up to provide initial ranges during the first engagement. Whether it provided some ranges at a later stageis irrelevant, as radar is not very useful once rangfe is acquired.
The "excuse" (justifying Capt.Leach decision to disengage) of a defective radar is over as well as the one of an "inexperienced crew" (because Hood had the same problem in the morning engagement according to McMullen and she was not a green ship).

Wadinga lowly wrote: "redacted from a letter not made available in its entirety...attempting to promulgate a Conspiracy Theory...distorted for personal gain..."

Better to post a "redacted" part of a letter from a primary source (McMullen original letter) than mentioning a statement from secondary sources without any date (Murphy): post your source, if you have any.
Please follow the moderator recommendation: avoid personal attacks and your usual low insinuations. (see above)
Avoid to accuse of "Conspiracy theories", the battle has been reconstructed by Antonio and all the old sailors memoirs are perfectly matching this reconstruction. There is no conspiracy theory, there was a proven "cover-up" (embellishment of the reports) to justify the poor (IMO) behavior of a couple of "honorable" but timid (IMO) officers.

I wonder why the moderator is still tolerating Mr.Wadinga undisciplined and provoking presence here. I will not accept anymore this kind of personal attacks and I promise I will answer as deserved (escalating to the webmaster if needed) if no measure will be taken to silence this guy.


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody

@ Alberto Virtuani,

you wrote :

I wonder why the moderator is still tolerating Mr. Wadinga undisciplined and provoking presence here. I will not accept anymore this kind of personal attacks and I promise I will answer as deserved if no measure will be taken to silence this guy.

Well done Alberto, ... just as I wrote and decided to do days ago after the first series of personal attacks and insult directed against us, ... before responding the way this guy deserves, ... as disciplined forum members we are waiting the moderator/webmaster actions to come on this guy.

@ Bill Jurens,

you asked :

I'd again ask participants to if at all possible refrain from personal attacks and editorializing.

while Mr. Wadinga kept on writing :

These Forum members are not attempting to promulgate a Conspiracy Theory for personal aggrandizement ( and maybe a fiscally beneficial book deal ), based on trashing the memory of honorable men who served their country well, with an imaginary alternate history based entirely on false evidence. These Forum members are those who prefer not to see the historical record distorted for personal gain, with an endless parade of false allegations and who have not decided to withdraw under a tirade of personal insults, but to stand up for truth and accuracy.

Now I will still avoid to respond to this person the way he deserves like I did in the past.

I decided to follow this approach respecting your and Jose' Rico authority in this website historical forum and waiting your actions to come as communicated.

Meanwhile I ask Alberto to still hold on and follow my same approach patiently, ... just as he is doing now.

We are only analyzing official available documents writing about history, and by doing so we are not offending nor insulting anybody like somebody in the opposite is very evidently doing to us as everybody can read above.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello All,

The absolute RoF of PoW was better than Bismarck's, her effective RoF was anyway comparable to Bismarck's one (as demonstrated since long time), and her effective number of delivered shells per minute was even better than Bismarck's.

This is completely incorrect and based on crude and naïve averaging taking no account of any periods of inactivity by Bismarck, for instance when the target was turning at maximum rate and prediction was impossible and thus firing would have been a waste of time. This is false evidence based on the shortcomings of the mathematical technique used given the extremely poor sampling available. The perpetrators have had this explained to them several times. Contradicting such inaccurate statements presented as fact does not constitute an insult.

If a gun can be fired but it does not hit the enemy, it's not defective.
The Type 284 set was not defective at all: it was working on board the Prince of Wales.

Murphy asked for ranges by telephone because the indicator was not giving him any. The radar operator did not give him ranges verbally because the radar was not giving any. Again an insupportable statement is made, contradicted by the man responsible for the radar, Paddon and the man who wanted ranges, Murphy. Murphy is not a secondary source he is primary.

I am happy to report that Mr. Rico and myself are now in the process of introducing new procedures which will make it easier to control potentially aggressive and offensive commentary. More should be following on that soon.

I hope that these will consider the outlawing of outlandish theories and their endless propagation which are rejected by the majority of other posters and which have caused several valued contributors to leave the Forum rather than be continually insulted and belittled for commenting adversely on those theories.

All the best
wadinga

[dunmunro]

The Type 284 set was not defective at all: it was working on board the Prince of Wales. It surely provided the opening ranges during the evening engagement. It simply had no time enough to warm up to provide initial ranges during the first engagement. Whether it provided some ranges at a later stageis irrelevant, as radar is not very useful once rangfe is acquired.
The "excuse" (justifying Capt.Leach decision to disengage) of a defective radar is over as well as the one of an "inexperienced crew" (because Hood had the same problem in the morning engagement according to McMullen and she was not a green ship).

Type 284 and Type 281 both failed to produce ranges during the first engagement. The RN radar experts gave the probable causes - end of story. Leach did not have a functioning radar ranging system which placed him at a severe disadvantage over his two opponents who did have radar ranging.

as radar is not very useful once range is acquired.

is a completely false statement. Radar was invaluable because it gave continuous ranges and could quickly detect changes in range rate and thus target inclination, and could do so when weather and sea state rendered optical RFs useless. At best an optical RF could give 4 to 6 ranges 'cuts' per minute and typically it was much less at long ranges and often rain and spray prevented any ranges at all, especially from the long base turret RFs.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "...based on crude and naïve averaging.."

Sure, these are rounded average values. If Mr.Wadinga wants to propose his "peak values" he can try once again to invent them (I remember very well that last time he tried to imagine that Bismarck was on course 270° since 5:55 and he even confused Hood and PoW splashes, in order to support his "theory" of Bismarck periods of... alleged inactivity...btw, these periods are explicitly disproved for PG by Jasper). Good luck !
The "annoying" (mathematically calculated, using British methodology) average values are good enough when speaking of a 10-15 minutes battle.

PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen_rounded.jpg (56.43 KiB) Viewed 1701 times

"Again an insupportable statement is made..."

...by Mr.Wadinga who believes that a defective set in the morning could provide open fire ranges in the evening....
Unfortunately for Mr.Wadinga, Type 284 was working and simply failed to obtain (initial) ranges during the first engagement.

Where Paddon speaks about 284 ? Please show us all the exact sentence...
Murphy would be a primary source if available... Correlli quoting Murphy is not...

Dunmunro wrote: "Leach did not have a functioning radar ranging system which placed him at a severe disadvantage over his two opponents who did have radar ranging."

Please prove what you write. Where is written that Germans did obtain radar ranges ?

Leach did not have a radar range during the (possibly only initial stages) of the battle, he had a perfectly functioning radar during the evening engagement. Apparently Hood had the same problem, therefore the reason is 1) the 284 unreliability as a radar set under certain conditions or 2) the fact they were switched on too late. I think the second one.

He was not placed at any "severe disadvantage" because his ship could hit the enemy before Bismarck did (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82302#p82297). Please stop claiming incorrect statements just to avoid to admit what is evident: PoW gunnery performance was good despite the initial range problem. Adm.Santarini lucidly explained why this simple admission is so difficult....

"...is a completely false statement. Radar was invaluable because it gave continuous ranges and could quickly detect changes in range rate and thus target inclination"

No this is another low accusation left unpunished here above. I hope that we will have another policy in place soon to avoid these guys insults and provocations when left without arguments.
BS course was a straight 220° , and her course was almost perfectly estimated by PoW (the salvo plot and her repeated hits confirm it). No major radar value could come after the range was acquired as no range rate variation occurred until 6:04 (when PoW had already ceased fire since a while).
In fact, radars were not mentioned by Leach as an excuse in his report and McMullen only referred to them for the open fire range, not later.



Bye; Alberto

[dunmunro]

So far as the radar issue is concerned, I am not sure that the details are of much relevance so far as the tactical issues are concerned. Regardless of circumstance, British shooting at the beginning of the action was really quite bad, with excessive down-laddering, which in my opinion at least reflects a common error known as 'nibbling at the spot'. That being said, I've seen plenty of target practices where for a variety of reasons one ship took considerably longer to attain a first straddle that any of her consorts did. Sometimes that's due to bad spotting, sometimes just due to bad luck. The sample size at the Denmark Strait is so small as to make -- again in my opinion -- it impossible to draw any firm conclusions. Except that the initial shooting from Prince of Wales seems to have been bad.

The connection, if any, between this relatively poor shooting at the beginning of the action and the tactical decisions made thereafter seems, at least to me, problematical at best. In reality what decided the action was not so much the shooting as the hitting, and in that regard and at least in that instance, Prince of Wales and Hood certainly seem to have got the worst of it. Had the British and Germans had a chance to try a 'do-over', it's likely that the results of the second attempt at an engagement would have been quite a bit different.

This is a quote from Brinkmann via PE's war dairy:

Evidently, it is far superior to our EM II radar in its range and accuracy. [2 comments by
Brinkmann in margin]. Perhaps the English [are] already using this instrument for. target
acquisition, since the first salvos [fired] at Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were very near the ships. It
was a stroke of luck that Prinz Eugen was spared from a direct hit because there were
projectiles striking the water all around the ship.

Now, the above quote shows that PE's war diary doesn't tell us much about Bismarck since we know that Brinkmann is incorrect (just as he was incorrect about her open fire times) about PoW's early salvos at Bismarck. We can be fairly certain that Brinkmann was impressed by Hood's shooting and it seems likely that Hood opened fire using type 284 ranges especially as the open fire range was just at the limit of her type 284 ranging capability as demonstrated by Hood during testing at Scapa Flow. However, as you are well aware, Hood was initially, at least, firing 2 gun salvos and the hit probability was extremely low even with accurate ranges, and Hood was feeding her radar ranges into an obsolete fire control computer.

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "...based on crude and naïve averaging.."

Sure, these are rounded average values. If Mr.Wadinga wants to propose his "peak values" he can try once again to invent them (I remember very well that last time he tried to imagine that Bismarck was on course 270° since 5:55 and he even confused Hood and PoW splashes, in order to support his "theory" of Bismarck periods of... alleged inactivity...btw, these periods are explicitly disproved for PG by Jasper). Good luck !
The "annoying" (mathematically calculated, using British methodology) average values are good enough when speaking of a 10-15 minutes battle.


PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen_rounded.jpg

"Again an insupportable statement is made..."

...by Mr.Wadinga who believes that a defective set in the morning could provide open fire ranges in the evening....
Unfortunately for Mr.Wadinga, Type 284 was working and simply failed to obtain (initial) ranges during the first engagement.

Where Paddon speaks about 284 ? Please show us all the exact sentence...
Murphy would be a primary source if available... Correlli quoting Murphy is not...

Dunmunro wrote: "Leach did not have a functioning radar ranging system which placed him at a severe disadvantage over his two opponents who did have radar ranging."

Please prove what you write. Where is written that Germans did obtain radar ranges ?

Leach did not have a radar range during the (possibly only initial stages) of the battle, he had a perfectly functioning radar during the evening engagement. Apparently Hood had the same problem, therefore the reason is 1) the 284 unreliability as a radar set under certain conditions or 2) the fact they were switched on too late. I think the second one.

He was not placed at any "severe disadvantage" because his ship could hit the enemy before Bismarck did (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82302#p82297). Please stop claiming incorrect statements just to avoid to admit what is evident: PoW gunnery performance was good despite the initial range problem. Adm.Santarini lucidly explained why this simple admission is so difficult....

"...is a completely false statement. Radar was invaluable because it gave continuous ranges and could quickly detect changes in range rate and thus target inclination"

No this is another low accusation left unpunished here above. I hope that we will have another policy in place soon to avoid these guys insults and provocations when left without arguments.
BS course was a straight 220° , and her course was almost perfectly estimated by PoW (the salvo plot and her repeated hits confirm it). No major radar value could come after the range was acquired as no range rate variation occurred until 6:04 (when PoW had already ceased fire since a while).
In fact, radars were not mentioned by Leach as an excuse in his report and McMullen only referred to them for the open fire range, not later.



Bye; Alberto

So in your efforts to prove Leach a coward, you now want to deprive the KM of FC radar despite any evidence for that? The PE war diary makes numerous references to her own radar and there is no plain statement along the lines of "...No results were obtained from either Type 281 or 284 R.D.F..." or the KM equivalent which would have been "...No results were obtained from either EM II set..." Bismarck's radio messages do not state that her EMII failed during any of her engagements with PoW.

When you make uninformed or trolling statements such as "... radar is not very useful once range is acquired..." you can expect a sharp reply since that is completely false and a rather shocking statement from someone who should have acquired some knowledge of WWII naval fire control by now.

[Bill Jurens]

So far as gunnery is concerned, in the actual fact, during the initial range and the later maintenance of hitting ranges one has to often deal with a variety of simultaneous -- or nearly simultaneous -- and contradictory inputs. Once one opens fire, the optical rangefinders are telling you one thing, the radar is telling you another, the mechanical rangekeeper is often giving yet another version, while the spotters are often telling you something else. Sorting all of this out in real time is not very easy and quite often unsuccessful. This is clear in 'wash ups' after gunnery exercises where meticulous records are kept in order to allow quite comprehensive post-action analysis. Experience counts for a lot and -- as in the ballet or the orchestra -- it often takes quite a few rehearsals to clear away the disasters.

I am not sure -- radar experts might be better on this -- but I suspect that in their earlier configurations the radars aboard POW and Hood probably could only get ranges within about 250-500 yards, and could probably not even discriminate PE and Bismarck as reliably separate targets in azimuth.

Perhaps I am just being exceptionally thick here, but I honestly fail to see how the nuances of obtaining initial range estimates (which is what we seem to be primarily discussing) have much to do with anything thereafter. I presume, quite possibly incorrectly, that we are trying to attempt to develop some relationship between the relative qualities of the gunfire accuracy of Bismarck vs POW and Hood. If that is the case, then I suspect that the sample size is really too small to enable any firm overall conclusions to be reached. It's a bit like trying to find out if a roulette wheel is rigged after six spins of the wheel.

In short, although discussion seems to be fairly heated at times, I am not sure precisely what we are fighting about, i.e. what we are trying to resolve immediately, and exactly where the results of this discussion are expected to lead.

Bill Jurens.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

I cannot care less in this moment about the PoW open fire methodology and sequence, if the radar was working or not initially and when it came operational.

What I care is that the forum members and in particular Mr Wadinga, that offended and insulted other forum members will be admonished as he fully deserves in public here in by this forum moderator.

I asked your intervention about it twice already.

You have asked me to delete or modify a post I wrote in response to it that was not even a tenth of those offenses and insults, ... while I was already asking your intervention, ... and you immediately came to me directly, ... without taking care of the guy that was insulting and offending and you left him free of any charge.

Now I wait your intervention, ... and in case I will not see it, ... than I will consider a response of a same level I did in the past directly to the guy.

@ Jose' Rico,

I have respected the moderator role as you can read, ... but with no impartiality on the role, ... it is useless, ... everything will be even worst very soon on this forum.

As I wrote, ... enough is enough.

Still respectful, ...

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "This is a quote from Brinkmann via PE's war dairy:
Evidently, it is far superior to our EM II radar in its range and accuracy. [2 comments by
Brinkmann in margin]. Perhaps the English [are] already using this instrument for. target
acquisition, since the first salvos [fired] at Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were very near the ships......."

Apparently Brinkmann considered a "defective radar" to be able to produce a better firing solution than German radars.... not bad Mr.Dunmunro ! This is a good point demonstrating that also the Germans had no real help from the radars.

Oh, sorry, I forgot Mr.Dunmunro's imaginative following explanation: that Brinkmann was wrong about almost everything he wrote but the precision of Hood firing.... He even imagine that Hood got a radar range despite the fact she did not pass any range (as expected) to PoW...
Hood fired at least 10 salvos, the last ones with all turrets, after arcs were open, hitting nothing.
PoW hit Bismarck at 6th salvo, when Y turret was still not bearing ,firing 2 guns in average per salvo (A1 was out of action + breakdowns).
Hood fired very poorly, not even putting a single splinter on board PG, just...sea water... while PoW shooting was remarkable, despite the initial overestimation of the range, but this is extremely difficult to admit for Mr.Dunmunro for the obvious reasons lucidly explained by Adm.Santarini.

Santarini_pag.54_Bismarck_Performance.jpg (45.83 KiB) Viewed 1613 times

@Bill Jurens: (oh yes, I'm actually screaming)
when I read the following kind of insults from a guy who invented the above :

Dunmunro wrote (my bold): "When you make uninformed or trolling statements such as "... radar is not very useful once range is acquired..." you can expect a sharp reply since that is completely false and a rather shocking statement from someone who should have acquired some knowledge of WWII naval fire control by now."

I wonder what you are doing as moderator (see also Wadinga post here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=45#p82293).
I had already warned you that I would have not tolerated anymore ANY insult: you did NOTHING at all (after having repeatedly warned myself and Antonio for much less) against these two infesting guys, vomiting their low insults since days.

I formally ask Mr.Rico to remove you from this role, that you are clearly unable to play (or that you cannot play simply because you sit with one side). You have come even to the point of covering the silence of these guys (when asked to contribute to the battle reconstruction) and finally of defending their "indeterminateness" theory, even if I have to recognize that, coming from them, indeterminateness is much, much more credible than their "crazy theories" (e.g. BS on course 270° since 5:55, BS open fire at 5:53, PG film showing Hood splashes, BS inactivity periods while firing, etc.etc....

From my side, I don't recognize anymore your authority on this forum and I will come back treating the RN hooligans as they deserve.

As Antonio wrote: "enough is enough."

@Dunmunro:
perhaps Mr.Dunmunro forgets that I used to be a gunnery officer, studying these aspects at school, while he was comfortably sitting in his armchair and that I had already to correct his trivial errors more than once regarding gunnery. Apparently it's him who has lost any knowledge of WWII naval fire control by now (clearly not only "poor old sailors" get stoned over the years...).
As everybody knows, once the range, speed and inclination are correctly acquired, a radar input can only be useful if the target changes its course/speed: it was not the case for Bismarck that was sailing straight 220° all the time.



Bye, Alberto

[Bill Jurens]

This is essentially a repost and rewrite of a comment I made slightly earlier which seems to have disappeared into cyber-space. Should it re-appear, my apologies for posting twice. It appears that I may have been 'cross posting' with other correspondents.

Anyhow, here we are again...

I am sorry that some members feel that my actions as moderator have been less-than-satisfactory. I hope that others somewhat disagree so that this does not represent a totally thankless task. As someone once said, "You can't please all of the people all of the time...".

As I mentioned in previous memos, my perception has been that there has been more than enough potentially offensive commentary posted to go around on both sides. This would, at times, undoubtedly include some correspondence from Wadinga and others.

That being said, I see little advantage at this point in revisiting the past and attempting to redress issues that have taken place in the past. This really just re-opens old wounds. In that regard, I will take my council from Sonya Sotomayer, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice who -- when asked about the past behaviors of some of her colleagues simply stated "I judge them not on what they did then, but on what they do NOW". For better or for worse, let's try to put the past behind us.

My perception over the past few days that although many comments on both sides have come close to 'crossing the line', none have been sufficient to trigger any response on my part. That was coupled with the fact that during most of that period, my ability to handle inappropriate behavior -- or at least behavior that I saw to be inappropriate -- was still in the process of being established. "Don't pull a gun unless you are willing and able to use it..." So, for a while, I more or less stepped aside and let matters take their own course. I'm discouraged to see that a militant and somewhat offensive tone seems to be rapidly returning.

In that regard, I would again express my wish that correspondents, rather than concentrating on real or perceived injustices in the past, attempt to maintain a reasonable and civil discourse NOW. That applies -- in case there is any ambiguity -- to members on BOTH sides of this somewhat acrimonious debate. In that regard, passionate debate is welcome and even useful, whereas the pointless delivery of innuendo and insult -- on either side -- is not.

Again, although others may feel otherwise, I really have no dog in this fight. I do have my own personal opinions of course, but when I do express them, I try to make it clear that I am just speaking out as any other member might, though perhaps a bit more tactfully. My job is not to decide the issue or even to steer the debate in a given direction . The membership as a whole will do that on their own. It's only to attempt, as best I might, to keep the debate within reasonable and respectful limits.

Still trying my best to do that...

Bill Jurens

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Bill Jurens,

you have allowed forum members to offend and insult other forum members and despite being asked to admonish this attitude you did nothing.

I am sorry for you Bill, ... but I think you are not the right guy for this role, ... as it shows.

@ Jose' Rico,

I am asking your intervention about all this, ... while I still avoid to respond directly to the offensive statements directed to me that are still readable on this thread and that did not receive any admonishment by the forum moderator you have named.

Thanks for you help.

Bye Antonio

[HMSVF]

This is essentially a repost and rewrite of a comment I made slightly earlier which seems to have disappeared into cyber-space. Should it re-appear, my apologies for posting twice. It appears that I may have been 'cross posting' with other correspondents.

Anyhow, here we are again...

I am sorry that some members feel that my actions as moderator have been less-than-satisfactory. I hope that others somewhat disagree so that this does not represent a totally thankless task. As someone once said, "You can't please all of the people all of the time...".

As I mentioned in previous memos, my perception has been that there has been more than enough potentially offensive commentary posted to go around on both sides. This would, at times, undoubtedly include some correspondence from Wadinga and others.

That being said, I see little advantage at this point in revisiting the past and attempting to redress issues that have taken place in the past. This really just re-opens old wounds. In that regard, I will take my council from Sonya Sotomayer, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice who -- when asked about the past behaviors of some of her colleagues simply stated "I judge them not on what they did then, but on what they do NOW". For better or for worse, let's try to put the past behind us.

My perception over the past few days that although many comments on both sides have come close to 'crossing the line', none have been sufficient to trigger any response on my part. That was coupled with the fact that during most of that period, my ability to handle inappropriate behavior -- or at least behavior that I saw to be inappropriate -- was still in the process of being established. "Don't pull a gun unless you are willing and able to use it..." So, for a while, I more or less stepped aside and let matters take their own course. I'm discouraged to see that a militant and somewhat offensive tone seems to be rapidly returning.

In that regard, I would again express my wish that correspondents, rather than concentrating on real or perceived injustices in the past, attempt to maintain a reasonable and civil discourse NOW. That applies -- in case there is any ambiguity -- to members on BOTH sides of this somewhat acrimonious debate. In that regard, passionate debate is welcome and even useful, whereas the pointless delivery of innuendo and insult -- on either side -- is not.

Again, although others may feel otherwise, I really have no dog in this fight. I do have my own personal opinions of course, but when I do express them, I try to make it clear that I am just speaking out as any other member might, though perhaps a bit more tactfully. My job is not to decide the issue or even to steer the debate in a given direction . The membership as a whole will do that on their own. It's only to attempt, as best I might, to keep the debate within reasonable and respectful limits.

Still trying my best to do that...

Bill Jurens

Bill,

The forum is lucky to have such a level headed guy such as yourself to even offer to moderate. A thankless task.

A mark of a “good” forum is in its membership numbers and diversity. Unfortunately it’s abundantly clear that this place is neither friendly or courteous. It will eventually die on its arse as I strongly suspect that there will be only 2 people left.

Is this what happened to the HMS Hood forum?

[Bill Jurens]

@HMSVF:

My thanks to you (and some others who have written 'back-channel') for the supportive comments. It's nice to know the job isn't completely thankless. My regret is that the Bismarck forum seems now to be becoming so polarized that -- somewhat like the U.S. Government -- it's now becoming only semi-functional. I hope I can turn that around a bit. It's not so much content, and it's certainly not unusual to find situations where sides are in adamant opposition to one another. The difficulty seems to be primarily involved in maintaining a mutually respectful and civil discourse. Of course, there are always some situations where various and sundry correspondents, for whatever reasons, don't actually want that to happen. Presumably they enjoy the argument itself...

I am not completely sure what happened to the Hood forum. There were a lot of lengthy, acrimonious, and even sometimes useful debates conducted there, but the serious forum died when one of the major (and more shall-we-say "argumentative") participants -- a fellow named Vic Dale as I recall -- basically destroyed the board by removing, well after-the-fact, all of his commentary, leaving most of the remaining historical discussion more-or-less unintelligible. A sad loss, from which it never really seems to have recovered, at least in it's previous form.

For the past five or six years -- perhaps longer, memory fails -- the Hood forum has been run, more or less informally, by a fellow named, by pseudonym, as 'Buzz Beurling'. In that regard, it has transformed more-or-less completely, from a fairly highly technical forum to one which is more concerned with local personal events and interests -- basically sort of a facebook page. I rarely visit the Hood forum now, primarily because my interests are primarily technical and the forum content is -- for better or for worse -- now somewhat 'chatty' to me. The Hood website remains an excellent source, however, of technical information -- it's just not on the forum anymore...

Again, my thanks for the vote of confidence...

Bill Jurens

[Byron Angel]

Just for the record - the reason I took myself to the sideline is because I just grew tired of all the vitriol; I'll be 71 next month and don't need the stress. But I love the topic and would happily participate in a collegial adult setting.

Whatever ever happened to - "We'll just have to agree to disagree"? The phrase seems like an eminently good alternative to this five-odd years of endlessly repetitive infighting.

Or ..... the current chaos can be permitted to continue and escalate. We can then all watch this great forum spiral down the toilet into oblivion.

Comments welcome.


B