"HMS SPITFIRE-Story" - only partwise true

[KizmeRD]

KizmED: You are justly surprised!

Ernst - I was only surprised by the height of the damage (which now explained in the posting by Terry Duncan), I certainly wasn't surprised by the nature of the damage which could only have been caused by a shallow angle port to port collision - wholly consistent with the report of Spitfire's Captain, Lt.-Cdr. Clarence Trelawny,who described the metal taken on board his ship as follows:

"The plating was an upper strake, the top parthaving part of the gutter way and deck plating adhering to it, and the lowerpart had some side scuttle holes. By the thickness of the coat's paint(3/32-in.) she would not appear to have been a very new ship."

And if you intend to produce new 'eyewitness' accounts by former ship's crew members, just be sure that these are reliable and that the people concerned were actually in a position to observe the action - after all you would be a fool to rely on the evidence say of engineers whose action stations were below decks, or of people enclosed in the gunnery control room, or down aft in the tiller flat. You also need to establish when your unpublished accounts were written, as memory plays odd tricks on old veterans looking back on times long past.

At present you whole interpretation on events lacks any real authority or credibility.

Michael

[Terry Duncan]

I'll try to get consent from the Bundesarchiv, Freiburg (Federal German Archive), for the use of their material in The Great War Forum. If possible I would then put the whole article into the forum which consists with documents of evidence of about 13 pages office-paper.

Ernst,

From memory only the photos and actual documents may be copywrite protected by the archive, there is no prohibition in posting a summary of what they say or even short passages from them, although obviously posting an entire article should be cleared first. For an example, if a document in the archive were to say 'Seaman X saw xxxxxx hit Ship C at xx:xx hours' it is perfectly permissable to report this and even to cite the document and archive in question unless the document itself is in some way classified. From memory nothing concerning the action at Jutland falls into that category now.

What you see as dug into SMS NASSAU and drugged along is the result of an explosion.

IF torpedoes had exploded in proximity to Nassau's side there would be severe burn markings as well as fragmentation impacts all along the hull nearby. Nothing like this exists on the only photo to be seen so far.

Sorry that he did not say a word to what extent the far lighter HMS SPITFIRE heeled over.

I would imagine the angle of heel on Spitfire to be no more than double that of Nassau, a lot depends on the angle of impact and the sea state.

I did not say that she broke apart on impact at an acute but at an obtuse or almost right angle.

Ships will not break apart from a right angle impact, all that happens is that the bow will smashed in on the ship striking the blow. Follow the link and scoll down to see the damage to Stockholm after a high angle impact into the larger Andrea Doria. As you can see the bow has effectively burst apart, but the rest of the ship is unharmed.

http://www.ssmaritime.com/Stockholm.htm

There is also nothing that would make torpedoes explode from a collision, warheads would need a direct impact at least and the propulsion method is most unlikely to explode from an impact to the bow.

Accounts from Nassau make it clear the main turrets could not depress enough to actually hit the far smaller Spitfire due to the size and range, so the damage you see to Spitfire was almost all from a collision or the blast alone from heavy guns.

[centurion]

Ships will not break apart from a right angle impact, all that happens is that the bow will smashed in on the ship striking the blow. Follow the link and scoll down to see the damage to Stockholm after a high angle impact into the larger Andrea Doria. As you can see the bow has effectively burst apart, but the rest of the ship is unharmed.

Indeed there is a theory that if the Titanic had not taken avoiding action but struck the iceberg head on we might only have one obscure documentary this week on the funny accident that happened to her on he maiden voyage that proved how unsinkable she was (which would be a relief to some of us)

[ionia]

Taffrail’s account of this incident (compiled from the accounts of those on board) has :

“The SPITFIRE heeled bodily over to starboard under the blow until the edge of her upper deck was well under water. As they struck (the NASSAU) opened fire with her bow guns immediately overhead. The weapons could not be depressed sufficiently to hit; but their terrific blast utterly demolished the destroyer’s bridge and knocked down the mast and foremost funnel.”

The damage at the join of NASSAU’s forecastle deck and side seems to be blast damage from the guns of her forward turret.

[KizmeRD]

Ernst, I have now had the opportunity of reading your article published on 27 March, 2010 in the 'Heimat am Meer' supplement of the Wilhelmshavener Zeitung.

Accordingly, would you please provide more information in relation to the statement made therein that "Nassau" sunk the English Cruiser "Hampshire" during the battle?

Michael

[centurion]

Gosh - so was Hampshire already sunk before Kitchener boarded her? Was she a ghost ship?

[PMHart]

Gosh - so was Hampshire already sunk before Kitchener boarded her? Was she a ghost ship?

Look I know this will get deleted again and I say it only in modest fun and not to cause offence to the moderators: but does this mean I was right all along and it really was aliens?

Hesitant Pete

[centurion]

Look I know this will get deleted again and I say it only in modest fun and not to cause offence to the moderators: but does this mean I was right all along and it really was aliens?

What's all this rubbish about the mods being aliens? I'm positive that at least some are definitely human

No the real truth is written in The Morten Code if you can find a copy that has not been destroyed. Kitchener was assassinated by a killer monk, from a secret abbey in Blackburn, on the orders of the Vatican, to prevent him from revealing Haig's true bloodline. A team of undercover Knights Templar working as civil servants in the war office and the admiralty in conjunction with others from the order in Germany covered it all up by falsifying the records to make it appear that Kitchener had in fact been drowned in HMS Hampshire which had in reality already been sunk in a collision with the Nassau. To account for the damage to the Nassau, Spitfire was written into the record has having collided with the battle ship. (in fact her damage was caused by inept docking when a Lt Phillips was on watch).

The secret is concealed in the Turneresque painting of the Battle of Jutland by James Morten which now hangs in Blackburn today

Well its no dafter than many conspiracy theories

[truthergw]

At last! A simple explanation.

Look I know this will get deleted again and I say it only in modest fun and not to cause offence to the moderators: but does this mean I was right all along and it really was aliens?

Hesitant Pete

No! You are still in dead stück.

[Terry Duncan]

Ernst, I have now had the opportunity of reading your article published on 27 March, 2010 in the 'Heimat am Meer' supplement of the Wilhelmshavener Zeitung.

Accordingly, would you please provide more information in relation to the statement made therein that "Nassau" sunk the English Cruiser "Hampshire" during the battle?

Michael

Mistakes in battle are easy to make, but it would be interesting to see how this claim is presented. If it is simply 'Crewman X said Nassau sank Hampshire' then such a claim is hardly unique as von Hase recorded that his gunnery officers thought they and Lutzow had been engaging Warspite when the latter blew up - the victim was Invincible. Considering the size difference, the different number of funnels, superfiring main turrets or main turrets amidships errors needed to arrive at such a claim at short range and perfect visibility, it is hard to see how such a view was ever held. This is all reported in von Hase's book 'Kiel and Jutland'.

If the claim is one of 'Hampshire was really sunk at Jutland, I would be fascinated to hear the reasoning behind such a claim.

[KizmeRD]

Mistakes in battle are easy to make, but it would be interesting to see how this claim is presented. If it is simply 'Crewman X said Nassau sank Hampshire' then such a claim is hardly unique as von Hase recorded that his gunnery officers thought they and Lutzow had been engaging Warspite when the latter blew up - the victim was Invincible. Considering the size difference, the different number of funnels, superfiring main turrets or main turrets amidships errors needed to arrive at such a claim at short range and perfect visibility, it is hard to see how such a view was ever held. This is all reported in von Hase's book 'Kiel and Jutland'.

If the claim is one of 'Hampshire was really sunk at Jutland, I would be fascinated to hear the reasoning behind such a claim.

I fully agree with you Terry, that's why I asked Ernst for clarification in as neutral a way as possible.

I don't know whether anyone else has read the German language article yet, but in it Ernst seems to suggest that his primary source material comes from bullet point notes made by a veteran onboard Nassau for purposes of delivering a talk to school kids on the topic of the Battle of Jutland 'Seesieg', delivered some years after the actual event.

It would be interesting to learn from Ernst what job his witness had onboard the Nassau, and whether he actually had a clear view of this nightime engagement.

Many differing interpretations of events are of course possible, but I tend to think that Ernst has an uphill battle in trying to overturn other more detailed and well documented official and unofficial accounts of what occurred that night - without him producing any clear or authorative evidence supporting the assertions he's making.

Please Ernst, get back to us and explain how you arrive at your conclusions - I very much look forward to to seeing a further posting frrom you.

Michael

[Gary Charles]

Bavarian, here is the root of your problem. The Sea Your History site at Portsmouth Naval Museum has incorrectly labelled a picture of Tipperary (I think) or the other rammed destroyer leader, as being Southampton!

http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/component/option,com_gallery2/Itemid,402/g2_itemId,8488/

It is obviously not Southampton, but once a mistake is made authors etc just keep reguritating it.

Victory.

[centurion]

Bavarian, here is the root of your problem. The Sea Your History site at Portsmouth Naval Museum has incorrectly labelled a picture of Tipperary (I think) or the other rammed destroyer leader, as being Southampton!

http://www.seayourhi...g2_itemId,8488/

It is obviously not Southampton, but once a mistake is made authors etc just keep reguritating it.

Victory.

Yes - always beware of captions. However even some members of this forum appear to have undue faith in them as I find in some other topics.

[Devonport56]

Bavarian, here is the root of your problem. The Sea Your History site at Portsmouth Naval Museum has incorrectly labelled a picture of Tipperary (I think) or the other rammed destroyer leader, as being Southampton!

http://www.seayourhi...g2_itemId,8488/

It is obviously not Southampton, but once a mistake is made authors etc just keep reguritating it.

Victory.

Tipperary was sunk at Jutland. Broke, the half-leader of the 4th Destroyer Flotilla, had its bow crumpled in a collision with Sparrowhawk. Contest then damaged its bow in a collision with Sparrowhawk's stern.

Does anyone recognise from the background where the photo was taken? In "Fawcett & Hooper", Broke's navigating officer recalls "At 5p.m. on Saturday, 3rd June, land was sighted, much to everyone's relief, and shortly afterwards we were met by some of our destroyers from Rosyth and escorted into the Tyne ..."

If this photograph shows the bow of Broke, the bridge, fore-mast, and the taller and narrower foremost funnel are not visible. The account in "Fawcett & Hooper" says "one large shell exploded at the base of the foremost funnel ... Another shell burst on the starboard side of the lower bridge, and it was this one that had wrecked the bridge, chart-house, and steering gear, and been the cause of our collision with Sparrowhawk. The upper bridge had practically nothing left intact on it ... During the night of Thursday to Friday, 1st to 2nd June, the wind and sea got up considerably ... At about midnight our fore-mast rolled over the side, most of the rigging having been shot away."

[nils d]

l suppose that the crew of the NASSAU were the first ever Germans to exclaim"ACTUNG SPITFIRE !"

KizmeRD you are being polite to Bavarian but have you considered that hes just too misguided to be real.?ls he actually just winding the British up???

[TeeCeeCee]

l suppose that the crew of the NASSAU were the first ever Germans to exclaim"ACTUNG SPITFIRE !"

KizmeRD you are being polite to Bavarian but have you considered that hes just too misguided to be real.?ls he actually just winding the British up???

If so, he won this war!

Yknow.... I can almost hear his mocking shout as he rides away "ENGLISHMEN... for you zis war is ov-ah! ha Ha HA HAA ha-ha-"