The Battle of the Denmark Strait

[Urs Heßling]

moin,

My concept of the battle is based strictly on the hard evidence available. 

Very good. Then, I would like to see you agree or disagree whether the visible barrels of turret A in picture NH-69728 are pointing to the [same] side where the observer stands.

Sehr gut. Dann möchte ich sehen, ob du zustimmst oder nicht, daß die in Bild NH-69728 sichtbaren Rohre des Turms A zu der(selben) Seite zeigen, auf der der Betrachter steht.

When someone deviates from the evidence and says that the Bismarck turned on a course due west followed by the Prinz Eugen at 0603, I have to use strong terms to refute that statement when it is obviously not supported by any hard evidence.

No, you don't have to use strong terms.
As Mr. Niestlé pointed out rightly, the use of strong terms does not bear fruit in a discussion.
Nein, Du mußt keine "starken Worte" nutzen.
Wie Herr Niestlé richtig sagte, tragen "starke Worte" in einer Diskussion keine Früchte.

You cannot claim to be right and "condemn" others' opinions just like that.
Du kannst nicht behaupten, im Besitz der Wahrheit zu sein und andere Meinungen "einfach so" verdammen.

AFAIK, there is more tan one RN log reporting that BS "turned away".
That evidence is as valuable as PG's "Gefechtsskizze" and others.
Meines Wissens gibt es mehr als eine Aufzeichnung der Royal Navy, in der von einem "Abdrehen" der BS berichtet wird.
Diese Berichte sind ebenso Beweise wie "Prinz Eugens" Gefechtsskizze und Anderes.

greetings, Urs

[thommy_l]

Hallo,

nur eine kleine Anmerkung:

als User ohne große Kenntnisse des englischen begeistert mich dieser Beitrag immer weniger ... obwohl für mich das Thema eigentlich sehr interessant sein könnte 

Grüße
Thommy

[Urs Heßling]

moin, Thommy,

als User ohne große Kenntnisse des englischen begeistert mich dieser Beitrag immer weniger ... obwohl für mich das Thema eigentlich sehr interessant sein könnte

bitte sehr: eine englische Übersetzung ist eingefügt, natürlich nur für meine Texte.

Ich möchte aus sicher verständlichen Gründen (nicht aus Mangel des Englischen) nicht die Ausführungen eines Diskussionsgegners übersetzen.

Gruß, Urs

[Karsten]

Diskussionsgegners

Diskussionspartner, wie Gesprächspartner. Klingt für meinen Geschmack besser.

[thommy_l]

Hallo Urs,

danke für die übersetzung deiner Texte! Dass du die Beiträge anderer nicht ins deutsche übersetzt erwartet doch niemand, das können diese doch offensichtlich selbst machen.

Die Unterscheidung zwischen Diskussionspartner und -Gegner, wie es Karsten soeben getan hat, finde ich gut.

Grüße
Thommy

[Urs Heßling]

moin, Karsten,

Diskussionsgegners

Diskussionspartner, wie Gesprächspartner. Klingt für meinen Geschmack besser.

Da stimme ich Dir zu.
Ich habe den anderen Begriff aber - in diesem besonderen Fall - ganz bewußt gewählt, um deutlich zu machen, daß ich mich nicht in die Gefahr begeben möchte, Vorwürfen ausgesetzt zu sein, ich hätte den Text eines Anderen, der eine gegensätzliche Meinung vertritt, falsch übersetzt und in meinem Sinne verdreht.

Gruß, Urs

[Karsten]

Urs, der Sinn Deiner Aussage war klar und nachvollziehbar. Mir ging es nur um das eine konkrete Wort.

[Wink]

Hello all,

It appears that I may have violated Forum protocol in the use of certain terminology in my responses to the posting of views by other members, and I apologize if I have offended anyone by such use.

When an item of evidence contradicts another item of evidence, then the use of the word "contradicts" is appropriate.

When a statement of opinion contradicts another statement of opinion, then the use of the word "contradicts" is also appropriate, especially if neither is supported by any hard evidence.

When a statement of opinion not supported by hard evidence is contrary to hard evidence in a case, I have been using the word "refute" to emphasize that the hard evidence has predominance over a mere statement of opinion.  Apparently, that word is not appropriate for use on this Forum, and I will discontinue that practice.

Thank you for calling it to my attention.

Gruß

Robert 

[Wink]

Hello Urs,

Regarding Photo NH-69728, we have been discussing the issue privately to avoid getting into a prolonged discussion with other members regarding the interpretation of that photograph.

If you still wish to bring others into our discussion, it would be helpful if you would post the picture of the enlarged forward turret section of the Bismarck that I sent to you so that all may see the blurred images that we are trying to interpret to fit into our own respective points of view regarding the battle.

Gruß

Robert

[Urs Heßling]

hi, Rob,

Photo NH-69728 ... If you still wish to bring others into our discussion, 

No I do not. IMO, the case is closed.

Nein, das möchte ich nicht. Aus meiner Sicht ist die Sache abgeschlossen.

Gruß, Urs

[Olaf]

The Prinz Eugen's Gefechtsskizze was a vital piece of evidence since it established the timing and scope of the three hard turns made by the cruiser as described by Paulus Jasper in the ship's Kriegstagebuch.  Just before 0604, the Prinz Eugen began her first turn to starboard, but after turning about 45 degrees, the cruiser turned sharply to port coming back to about her original course of 220 degrees.  The Prinz Eugen then made another hard turn to starboard of about 45 degrees and then returned again to a course of about 220 degrees.

Some claim that the Prinz Eugen and the Bismarck turned to starboard at 0602 followed by the Prinz Eugen at 0603 and that both ships headed due west on parallel courses of 270 degrees for several minutes while the starboard views of the Bismarck and the battle film were being taken.  This is positively refuted by the Prinz Eugen's Gefechtsskizze and the recollection of Bismarck survivor, Baron von Müllenheim-Rechberg, and there is no other documentary evidence to support that belief that I know of.  This is truly pure idle speculation by them.

Ich sprach von zwei Minuten, nicht "several" (mehrere).  Und mit "starboard views" meinst Du sicher, dass von der Steuerbordseite des Prinzen die Backbordseite der Bismarck zu sehen war, oder? Anderfalls haben alle hier den Eindruck, Du verdrehst meine Worte. Und das möchtest Du sicher nicht bezwecken.

Ach so:


Dazu sage ich nur: Erst kieken, dann quieken ...


Happy whatever ~ Olaf!

[Wink]

Hallo Olaf,

Thanks for posting the Prinz Eugen's Gefechtsskizze on the Forum so that all may see for themselves what the circumstances were.  The sketch shows exactly what I have attempted to describe, namely that the Prinz Eugen made a series of hard turns, first to starboard, then to port, then back to starboard, and finally returning to a southerly direction.

The generally accepted version of the battle shows the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen traveling on parallel courses due west on a bearing of 270 degrees from 0603 to 0606, which is a total of three minutes.  It is during that time that the starboard views of the Bismarck and the corresponding segment of battle film are believed by some to have been taken.

The movement of the Prinz Eugen as described above would be shown on its track chart as a straight line extending due west on course 270 degrees from her first turn to starboard for a length representing at least three minutes of travel before turning to port on a southerly direction.  That is not what is shown on the Gefechtsskizze.

Gruß

Robert

[Wink]

Hello all,

We have now reached the 100-mark with our Antworen, and I believe that I have all of the answers to my questions, although not specifically stated by the members of the Forum.  I would like to thank those of you who have seriously contributed to this effort, and I believe that we have all learned from it.

It appears that all of you believe that the photographs taken of the Bismarck from the Prinz Eugen during the battle are positive proof that the Bismarck had been on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen during the battle.  In other words, you do not believe that any of the photographs had been printed in reverse.

You therefore do not accept the report by Paulus Jasper in the Prinz Eugen's Kriegstagebuch that the Bismarck came between the Prinz Eugen and the Prince of Wales because it indicates that the Bismarck was on the port side of the Prinz Eugen at the time.  Neither do you accept Paul Schmalenbach's battle diagram showing the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen from 0600 until after 0609.

You do not accept Baron von Müllenheim-Rechberg's narrative of the battle because he did not report the turns purportedly made by the Bismarck in response to the Prinz Eugen's torpedo alarm.  Neither did the Baron mention that the cruiser came between the Bismarck and Prince of Wales, disrupting the firing routine of the Bismarck, and incidentally also that of the Prince of Wales.

You do not accept the Prinz Eugen's Gefechtsskizze because it does not show the cruiser turning due west in consort with the Bismarck and holding that course for at least three minutes before turning south again.  Neither can you accept the Prinz Eugn's speed chart because it represented the called for speed and not the actual speed, which would have been diminished as a result of her turns.

You do not accept that The Bismarck could only gain only 92 meters per minute on the Prinz Eugen while both ships are traveling in the same direction and with the Prinz Eugen sailing at 27 knots and the Bismarck sailing at her maximum speed of 30 knots since the actual speeds of the ships could not be determined.

You believe that Admiral Lütjens ordered the Bismarck to sail to the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen, leaving the cruiser in the direct line of fire from the Prince of Wales and in violation of German naval regulations mandating that smaller naval units be placed on the lee (protected) side of larger warships during combat engagements with enemy forces.

You do not accept the Prince of Wales Salvo Plot as accurately reflecting the track of the Bismarck during the battle since it indicates that the Bismarck was sailing on a course of 212 degrees, 8 degrees to port of the 220-degree course being sailed by the Prinz Eugen up to 0602.  You do, however, believe that the small outward curve at the end of the track of the Bismarck on the plot proves conclusively that the Bismarck turned away to starboard at 0602.

You do not accept that the starboard views of the Bismarck and the related segment of battle film were taken in the 0607-0611 time frame, but you believe that the starboard views of the Bismarck and the battle film were taken between 0603-0606.

Going back to our earlier exchange, you do not accept my explanation for the two secondary turrets being illuminated by the flash of the Bismarck firing her after main armament gun turrets while the surrounding portside surfaces remained completely in the dark, as shown in Photo NH-69726.  Neither do not accept NH-69727 as showing the Bismarck firing to starboard.

You do not accept that the huge clouds of smoke generated from the Bismarck firing her big guns appear only on the far (starboard) side and never on the near (port) side of the ship in the battle film.  You do, however, believe that the single frame of the battle film showing a cluster of three small balls of fire near the center of the ship is conclusive proof that the portside middle artillery of the Bismarck was firing even though the turrets were spaced 50 meters apart.

If you agree that this sums up the consensus of the members of the Marinearchiv Forum, we can bring this theme to a close.

Gruß

Robert

[Karsten]

Hello all,

We have now reached the 100-mark with our Antworen, and I believe that I have all of the answers to my questions, although not specifically stated by the members of the Forum.  I would like to thank those of you who have seriously contributed to this effort, and I believe that we have all learned from it.

It appears that all of you believe that the photographs taken of the Bismarck from the Prinz Eugen during the battle are positive proof that the Bismarck had been on the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen during the battle.  In other words, you do not believe that any of the photographs had been printed in reverse.

You therefore do not accept the report by Paulus Jasper in the Prinz Eugen's Kriegstagebuch that the Bismarck came between the Prinz Eugen and the Prince of Wales because it indicates that the Bismarck was on the port side of the Prinz Eugen at the time.  Neither do you accept Paul Schmalenbach's battle diagram showing the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen from 0600 until after 0609.

You do not accept Baron von Müllenheim-Rechberg's narrative of the battle because he did not report the turns purportedly made by the Bismarck in response to the Prinz Eugen's torpedo alarm.  Neither did the Baron mention that the cruiser came between the Bismarck and Prince of Wales, disrupting the firing routine of the Bismarck, and incidentally also that of the Prince of Wales.

You do not accept the Prinz Eugen's Gefechtsskizze because it does not show the cruiser turning due west in consort with the Bismarck and holding that course for at least three minutes before turning south again.  Neither can you accept the Prinz Eugn's speed chart because it represented the called for speed and not the actual speed, which would have been diminished as a result of her turns.

You do not accept that The Bismarck could only gain only 92 meters per minute on the Prinz Eugen while both ships are traveling in the same direction and with the Prinz Eugen sailing at 27 knots and the Bismarck sailing at her maximum speed of 30 knots since the actual speeds of the ships could not be determined.

You believe that Admiral Lütjens ordered the Bismarck to sail to the starboard side of the Prinz Eugen, leaving the cruiser in the direct line of fire from the Prince of Wales and in violation of German naval regulations mandating that smaller naval units be placed on the lee (protected) side of larger warships during combat engagements with enemy forces.

You do not accept the Prince of Wales Salvo Plot as accurately reflecting the track of the Bismarck during the battle since it indicates that the Bismarck was sailing on a course of 212 degrees, 8 degrees to port of the 220-degree course being sailed by the Prinz Eugen up to 0602.  You do, however, believe that the small outward curve at the end of the track of the Bismarck on the plot proves conclusively that the Bismarck turned away to starboard at 0602.

You do not accept that the starboard views of the Bismarck and the related segment of battle film were taken in the 0607-0611 time frame, but you believe that the starboard views of the Bismarck and the battle film were taken between 0603-0606.

Going back to our earlier exchange, you do not accept my explanation for the two secondary turrets being illuminated by the flash of the Bismarck firing her after main armament gun turrets while the surrounding portside surfaces remained completely in the dark, as shown in Photo NH-69726.  Neither do not accept NH-69727 as showing the Bismarck firing to starboard.

You do not accept that the huge clouds of smoke generated from the Bismarck firing her big guns appear only on the far (starboard) side and never on the near (port) side of the ship in the battle film.  You do, however, believe that the single frame of the battle film showing a cluster of three small balls of fire near the center of the ship is conclusive proof that the portside middle artillery of the Bismarck was firing even though the turrets were spaced 50 meters apart.

If you agree that this sums up the consensus of the members of the Marinearchiv Forum, we can bring this theme to a close.

Gruß

Robert

Sorry, aber das liest sich wie ein - und da werte ich jetzt: verächtliches - Urteil über uns FMA-Mitglieder. WTF soll das?

[Olaf]

You do not accept the Prinz Eugen's Gefechtsskizze because it does not show the cruiser turning due west in consort with the Bismarck and holding that course for at least three minutes before turning south again.  Neither can you accept the Prinz Eugn's speed chart because it represented the called for speed and not the actual speed, which would have been diminished as a result of her turns.

Du legst uns Dinge in den Mund, die einfach nicht stimmen. Ich denke, Du spielst viel zu viel mit Worten. Selbstverständlich zeigt die PG-Skizze nicht, dass die beiden Schiffe zusammen nach Westen fuhren, da der Kurs der Bismarck ja gar nicht eingezeichnet ist. Eine der Schmalenbach-Sizzen aber zeigt, dass BEIDE Schiffe drehten. Ferner hast Du zuerst nicht zugegeben, dass die Schiffe überhaupt nach Westen fuhren, dann erwähnte ich den Zeitraum von jeweils zwei Minuten, daraus machtest Du dann "several" Minuten, obwohl Du behauptest hast, die Schiffe fuhren nicht nach Westen, und jetzt schreibst Du, wir akzeptieren die PG-Gefechtsskizze überhaupt nicht. Glaube mir, ich habe den Ausschnitt nicht eingestellt, um Dir zuzustimmen ...

Und die Krönung ist, dass Du nun MEIN Argument (==> Geschwindigkeitsverlust von PG sowie die befohlene und nicht die tatsächliche Geschwindigkeit von 27 Kn) nun für DICH nutzt. Man könnte meinen, ob dieser Frechheit, dass Du allem Anschein nach nicht das sharpest Knife in der Draw bist.

Und nur, weil niemand auf Deine ganze Latte an Thesen nicht mehr antwortet, heißt das nicht, dass man zustimmt oder nicht zustimmt. Du drehst Dir das gerade so hin, wie es Dir passt.

Warum tust Du Dir DEN Stress überhaupt an? Glaubst Du allen Ernstes, Du verkaufst dadurch EIN Buch mehr? There's no publicity like bad publicity?

Ich bin gespannt aufs nächste Jahr, ob Du das Thema hier wieder einstellst oder Deine ungebetenen E-Mails verschickst ...


Happy  ~ Olaf!