Hi Paul,paul.mercer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:57 amHi Antonio,
@ Paul Mercer,
'we have deeply analyzed that event on a dedicated thread 6 years ago, ... you can read all in here :
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6276&hilit=hit+comp ... orm#p56258
For any additional help about it, ... just feel free to ask, ... it is only history, ... nothing else.'
Many thanks as ever for your reply,
I have had a look at that topic and while it is very interesting and informative, it does not really address the question that I put in my last post which was, it is really possible to tie down precise timings to the very minute (like when firing stopped, orders given to turn away and exact courses ordered, when the bridge is in chaos with people lying dead or wounded (and no doubt shell shocked) and to add to the confusion more shells either hitting or landing in the sea all around. Without wishing to seem frivolous, I find it difficult to grasp that at that time someone was looking at the clock or their watch and noting down the exact time an order was given. Also, (and I am putting my head on the block with this!) do timings to the very minute actually matter that much when it comes to the overall view of the battle,presumably the timings of when all the ships opened fire and the moment Hood blew up are accurate as are the events until PoW got hit on the Compass platform - but after that?
On this I fully agree. The "human" factor to battle (to me) is a key part of having an understanding of what occurred. Whilst you can train, and to some extent simulate lethal situations ,when it comes to the real thing it's completely different.The perceptions of what occurred can be hugely different as well.
I was reading the other day an account from an officer on HMS Indomitable at the Battle of Jutland who witnessed the destruction of HMS Invincible. He said that she blew up without a sound, yet when an officer who stood next to him said that the noise was so great that he though that his ears would explode. Same event witnessed by 2 people with two differing versions of what happened. IHMO this why you have divergence in accounts that what occurred. It's not that people where deceitful - their perception of what was occurring was different to others. Its why you have to be careful with witness testimony. When HMS Queen Mary blew up an officer was adamant that he saw the forward part of HMS Queen Mary stagger onwards, he said that the image of seeing officers and en still at their stations haunted him for the rest of his life. We now know that he couldn't possibly have seen this as it was the forward part of the ship which exploded and the stern that remained afloat. Again, he hadn't lied, but in actuality he couldn't have seen the bridge crew at their stations as he stated.
I would imagine that those who survived the compass platform hit would be at the very least stunned and running on adrenaline (fight or flight response). I believe that you are correct in questioning the veracity of charting and documentation in such an event. Humans are just not built to take such forces and pressure and not have there abilities degraded. At the end of the day these behemoths were products of the analogue age and relied on human input to function. Charts and such were also filled in by humans as opposed to computers and so there is always the degree of ambiguity that wouldn't be present in our modern digital age.
Does it take ha huge difference with the timings? Well I suppose it depends on whether you believe that it holds a significance or was part of a bigger picture. In the space of minutes HMS Hood had sunk,HMS Prince of Wales got a pummelling and turned tail (wisely IMHO). Trying to tie down the exact times to the exact second relying on witness's statements and human inputted charts is problematical IMHO due to reasons I mentioned before. The best that can be achieved IMHO is an approximation whilst recognising that that even then there maybe anomalies.