PoW shell splash

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:25 pm

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "like the other two splashes (2:45 + 3:04) the 3rd also fades from view."
it fades just because the light/angle of camera changes and the "stripe" in the sky (or the anomaly on the film support) is not visible anymore.

The 2 "real" splashes leave NO trace up to the sky when collapsed: they are just gone, the "2nd one" IMO is not a splash.


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: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by wadinga » Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:18 pm

Fellow Contributors,


It must be noticeable that several posts from various posters have been truncated accidentally

It must have been very exciting aboard PG as these shells which land just beyond the "danger space" area for that ship, passed over her struct
Busch describes seeing the Y turret salvoes fired, he also says on P 59 of The Story of Prince Eugen:
"It can only have come from the Hood" confirmed Capitan Brinkmann. "The battleship never fired at us but only at the Bismarck. I just wanted it confirmed. Thank you."
Given the low angle of fall identified by Bill Jurens, these shots clearly landing closer to PG than Bismarck have passed over her superstructure at very low altitude. If any of the parting shots fired by PoW had landed anywhere near PG Busch would have mentioned it since he had seen them fired. He says the only shots landing near PG were from Hood.

Speculative reconstructions of vessel tracks used to justify :
Please look at the course of Bismarck (around 270°)
are of no value. There is no record of Bismarck's course during the engagement.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:00 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "He says the only shots landing near PG were from Hood....Speculative reconstructions of vessel tracks are of no value"
...and he is wrong because at the time the film starts with the Bismarck images (6:04 as demonstrated here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=435#p82759) Hood had already sunk since a while....as simple as this.

The track of Bismarck around 270° is not a speculation, it is demonstrated by her turrets being rotated aft of her beam, whatever caption anyone could have associated to it, sorry for this very inconvenient evidence (download/file.php?id=3251).



Of course the isolated shells (where are in the film the PoW's salvos landing close or hitting Bismarck, if these are Hood shells ? [emoji deleted by moderator Jurens ) passing over PG at minute 6:04 were directed by Alwin against Bismarck: it's irrelevant whether they landed closer to one or the other German ship.


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: 2054
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by wadinga » Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:38 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Once again a speculative map and timetable are used to tell eye witnesses they did not see what they saw:
The battleship never fired at us but only at the Bismarck
All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by José M. Rico » Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:07 am

wadinga wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:38 pm
Once again a speculative map and timetable are used to tell eye witnesses they did not see what they saw:
The battleship never fired at us but only at the Bismarck
It seems to me you are speculating as well.
Prince of Wales was firing at Bismarck all time, and I think we all agree on that.
The fact that ONE 14-inch shell might have landed closer to Prinz Eugen than to Bismarck only proves how erratic PoW's fire was at that late stage of the battle firing under local control.

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by José M. Rico » Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:22 am

wadinga wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:18 pm
Given the low angle of fall identified by Bill Jurens, these shots clearly landing closer to PG than Bismarck have passed over her superstructure at very low altitude.
Bismarck is not firing over PG's superstructure and neither is PoW.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by dunmunro » Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:52 am

José M. Rico wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:07 am
wadinga wrote:
Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:38 pm
Once again a speculative map and timetable are used to tell eye witnesses they did not see what they saw:
The battleship never fired at us but only at the Bismarck
It seems to me you are speculating as well.
Prince of Wales was firing at Bismarck all time, and I think we all agree on that.
The fact that ONE 14-inch shell might have landed closer to Prinz Eugen than to Bismarck only proves how erratic PoW's fire was at that late stage of the battle firing under local control.
The photos in post one and five of this thread show that both (all 3 actually when we examine the film) are closer to PE than to Bismarck and if even one was closer to PE than Bismarck then it seems unlikely that observers on PE would claim that PoW never fired at PE.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:57 pm

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "...it seems unlikely that observers on PE would claim that PoW never fired at PE"
apart from the fact that it's a bit difficult to establish whether a splash is closer to Bismarck or to PG from a photo, it's clear that observers on PG were correct, unlikely as it can be.
PoW never fired to PG but her fire was erratic when turning away hard under smoke. The PG observers saw the splashes progressively falling closer to Bismarck than the their ship and they came to the only logical conclusion that fire was being adjusted by Alwin against Bismarck.

Being isolated splashes (not 3 to 5 shells salvos fired every 30 seconds) in a 2+ minutes sequence, being impossible that the splashes are from Hood after 6:01, being Bismarck on a westerly course at the time of the splashes (download/file.php?id=3460) and being the PG turn to starboard (6:04 on her battlemap) well visible at the start of the film (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=435#p82759), there is no other logical conclusion than the one they were from PoW local salvos.


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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by dunmunro » Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:15 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:57 pm
Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "...it seems unlikely that observers on PE would claim that PoW never fired at PE"
apart from the fact that it's a bit difficult to establish whether a splash is closer to Bismarck or to PG from a photo, it's clear that observers on PG were correct, unlikely as it can be.
PoW never fired to PG but her fire was erratic when turning away hard under smoke. The PG observers saw the splashes progressively falling closer to Bismarck than the their ship and they came to the only logical conclusion that fire was being adjusted by Alwin against Bismarck.

Being isolated splashes (not 3 to 5 shells salvos fired every 30 seconds) in a 2+ minutes sequence, being impossible that the splashes are from Hood after 6:01, being Bismarck on a westerly course at the time of the splashes (download/file.php?id=3460) and being the PG turn to starboard (6:04 on her battlemap) well visible at the start of the film (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=435#p82759), there is no other logical conclusion than the one they were from PoW local salvos.


Bye, Alberto
The films presents us with salvos falling hear PoW and stills from that film were captioned that the splashes came from Hood's 15in guns. The film then shows PoW firing fore and aft salvos, obviously from the time that PoW's main armament was director controlled. The film then shows PoW's final turns, presumably after Y turret stopped firing. So the film as presented never shows or claims to show 14in shell splashes. Rather it claims to show 15in shell splashes.

The only reason that anyone thinks that it shows 14in shell splashes is because US archivists re-captioned the photos and because A&A say it does; there is no other historical documentation that would lead us to believe that the film shows 14in shell splashes. Everyone who looks at the film should very carefully consider the circular logic that has gone into A&A claims:

We have no historical KM document showing a precise track of PE and Bismarck's movements on the morning of 24 May 1941. A&A have taken the photos that we have from that morning and arranged them (out of their original stated sequence) very convincingly to try and recreate the tracks of Lutjen's squadron. A&A then refer back to this recreation as proof that their interpretation of events is correct. Thus we have a completely circular logic to their thesis; that the shell splashes shown are from PoW's Y turret, when fired under local control.

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by northcape » Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:29 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:15 pm

A&A then refer back to this recreation as proof that their interpretation of events is correct. Thus we have a completely circular logic to their thesis;
This has been highlighted so many times. By now everybody should be aware of this, and, in my view, the only way to stop the spread of this circular logic is to stop reacting to their proponents. "Worueber man nicht reden kann, soll man schweigen."

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:00 am

Hello everybody,
"there is no other historical documentation that would lead us to believe that the film shows 14in shell splashes."
As per all photos and film, there is no historical documentation that allow to time them except (mostly wrong) captions. Antonio Bonomi in 2005 has reconstructed the battle using the available tracks of the ships and putting the photos and the film in the right sequence to cope and support the reconstruction.
During the film analysis it was clear that the Hood explosion scene was added in between the Bismarck firing sequence (possibly for propaganda reasons) but the Bismarck firing sequence is uninterrupted once eliminated the inserted scene.


In case someone wants to state that the shells are from Hood (therefore that the film shows events happening before 6:01), this person must address before the following observations:
Being isolated splashes (not 3 to 5 shells salvos fired every 30 seconds) in a 2+ minutes sequence, being impossible that the splashes are from Hood after 6:01, being Bismarck on a westerly course at the time of the splashes (download/file.php?id=3460) and being the PG turn to starboard (6:04 on her battlemap) well visible at the start of the film (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=435#p82759), there is no other logical conclusion than the one they were from PoW local salvos.
I hope it's clear now why the splashes cannot be but PoW splashes fired in local control, not because "A&A" have decided it, but because there is no way to reconstruct (decently) the battle in another way (at least it was never presented here, despite several times requested by "A&A".....).
Worueber man nicht reden kann, soll man schweigen ? no, "Non c'e' peggior sordo di chi non vuol sentire..."


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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by dunmunro » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:38 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:57 pm
Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "...it seems unlikely that observers on PE would claim that PoW never fired at PE"
apart from the fact that it's a bit difficult to establish whether a splash is closer to Bismarck or to PG from a photo, it's clear that observers on PG were correct, unlikely as it can be.
I find it interesting that you claim to be able to extract extremely accurate position data from these photos but then can't seem to be able to determine if the 15in shell splashes are closer to PE than Bismarck...

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:27 am

Hello everybody,

I find it interesting that D&S still insist to support their theory about these splashes, without answering the evidences that definitely prove they are the PoW local controlled salvos...
1) Being isolated splashes (not 3 to 5 shells salvos fired every 30 seconds) in a 2+ minutes sequence (where are the PoW splashes in the PG film (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPmkOtSveXY) if these two are from Hood ?),
2) being obviously impossible that the splashes are from Hood after 6:01 (or even before according to another "theory"),
3) being Bismarck on a clearly westerly course (see her gun barrels and turrets shape showing her firing well aft of her beam) at the time of the splashes (download/file.php?id=3251) and
4) being the PG turn to starboard (6:04 on her battlemap http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... tlemap.gif) well visible analyzing the start of the film (see an easy explanation here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=435#p82759),

there is no other logical conclusion than the one they were from PoW local salvos.
If unable to address the evidences, it's a waste of time to repeat again and again that (one of them ?) was (possibly ?) falling closer to PG than to Bismarck to try to support a wrong statement...


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: 743
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:15 am

"D&S"?

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW shell splash

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:34 am

"A&A"? (fyi, "D&S" are the first letters of the first real names of Mr.Dunmunro and Mr.Wadinga, who find funny to call us A&A here...)

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)

Post Reply