Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by wadinga »

Byron,

You Beauty. :dance:
The problem with this entire "discussion" is the white-knuckled death grip clutching the pre-supposition that Wake-Walke's failure to take Bismarck under fire and Leach's decision to disengage after the loss of Hood are proof of a sudden attack of mass cowardice among the senior ranks of the RN. No other possibility is allowed. Any evidence that can remotely be construed to support the pre-ordained belief is enshrined, while any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as lies or error. Such a close minded approach is defective.
:clap:

The pre-plan 4 map of the Counties' location relative to PoW (source of positional information unknown) cannot be reconciled with the distance run by Norfolk between 05:37 and 06:00 so it is ten miles when it needs to be, and 15 plus when that is more convenient, see the Violet and Green scenarios. As you say, when neither of these can be reconciled with Norfolk's range measurements, that is because the latter are lies.

Your fullsome acknowledgement of Antonio's earlier, excellent, groundbreaking work is 100% correct, but like you, I see only conclusion-driven research recently. A "revelation" to be justified, come what may.

There is no acceptance that it was inevitable that Leach would order an essential manouevre to reduce the headlong closing rate at or about 06:01:30 even though it was already delayed by avoiding Hood's wreck and should have occurred even earlier in line with Holland's last signal. Instead a pre-determined motive is applied to it, a madly speeded-up scenario is evisaged to facilitate it, and a conspiracy conjured up, responsible for hiding what evidence there is. So that "Never Again" will anybody say "PoW withdrew at 06:13" when it should have been sometime earlier. Depending on whether you consider the first part of withdrawing is not charging as hard at the enemy as you were.

This is not the rational, evidence-driven approach we have seen before from the thread starter.

Judging RN officers against "comic book" standards of "Boy's Own" heroism has no place here. Leach had just seen 1400 lives snuffed out and had a similar number under his hand. Destroyers and AMC's are numerous, and expendable if they cannot escape overwhelming force, (Glowworm and Rawalpindi). Suicidal defence of a nearby convoy may be demanded (Achates and Jervis Bay). There is no convoy behind PoW, just the possibility one might be found, maybe, sometime later.
Leach does not run for harbour but remains in contact, Lutjens has no free hand, and the watchers can divert victims out of reach. Lutjens has won a battle, but Wake-Walker has the initiative, and the further the Germans head west under observation, the more likely their destruction.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Wadinga wrote: "This is not the rational, evidence-driven approach we have seen before from the thread starter.
Judging RN officers against "comic book" standards of "Boy's Own" heroism has no place here."
Hi Sean,
I think Antonio has provided enough evidence to build a precise battle scenario. I have NOT YET SEEN such a reconstruction from any of the people who refuse to believe to the facts. I think it's more comfortable to call for the "fog of war" instead of digging into evidences and try to enlighten an episode of history.

The judgement of these officers behaviour should have been done by an Inquiry due to the Naval Discipline Act in place during WWII (see below as a memory refresh), even if this can be annoying for someone......
I understand we can have very different judgements on these behaviours (as well as an Inquiry could have been of different advise), however I would not call the RN regulations comic books, would you ?
NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACT 1866 (in place from 1866 till 1957 in the Royal Navy)
"PART I.
ARTICLES or WAR.
.............
Misconduct in the Presence of the Enemy.

2. Every Flag Officer, Captain, Commander or Officer commanding subject to this Act who upon Signal of Battle, or on Sight of a Ship of an Enemy which it may be his Duty to engage, shall not,

(1.) Use his utmost Exertion to bring his Ship into Action;
(2.) Or shall not during such Action, in his own Person and according to his Rank, encourage his inferior Officers and Men to fight courageously;
(3.) Or who shall surrender his Ship to the Enemy when capable of making a successful Defence, or who in Time of Action shall improperly withdraw from the Fight,

shall, if he has acted traitorously, suffer Death; if he has acted from Cowardice shall suffer Death, or such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned; and if he has acted from Negligence, or through other Default, he shall be dismissed from Her Majesty's Service, with or without Disgrace, or shall suffer such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned.

3. Every Officer subject to this Act who shall forbear to pursue the Chase of any Enemy, Pirate, or Rebel, beaten or flying, or shall not relieve and assist a known Friend in View to the utmost of his Power, or who shall improperly forsake his Station, shall, if he has therein acted traitorously, suffer Death; if he has acted from Cowardice, suffer Death or such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned; if he has acted from Negligence, or through other Default, shall be dismissed from Her Majesty's Service, with Disgrace, or shall suffer such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned."
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: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Wadinga wrote: "This is not the rational, evidence-driven approach we have seen before from the thread starter.
Judging RN officers against "comic book" standards of "Boy's Own" heroism has no place here."
Hi Sean,
I think Antonio has provided enough evidence to build a precise battle scenario. I have NOT YET SEEN such a reconstruction from any of the people who refuse to believe to the facts. I think it's more comfortable to call for the "fog of war" instead of digging into evidences and try to enlighten an episode of history.

The judgement of these officers behaviour should have been done by an Inquiry due to the Naval Discipline Act in place during WWII (see below as a memory refresh), even if this can be annoying for someone......
I understand we can have very different judgements on these behaviours (as well as an Inquiry could have been of different advise), however I would not call the RN regulations comic books, would you ?
NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACT 1866 (in place from 1866 till 1957 in the Royal Navy)
"PART I.
ARTICLES or WAR.
.............
Misconduct in the Presence of the Enemy.

2. Every Flag Officer, Captain, Commander or Officer commanding subject to this Act who upon Signal of Battle, or on Sight of a Ship of an Enemy which it may be his Duty to engage, shall not,

(1.) Use his utmost Exertion to bring his Ship into Action;
(2.) Or shall not during such Action, in his own Person and according to his Rank, encourage his inferior Officers and Men to fight courageously;
(3.) Or who shall surrender his Ship to the Enemy when capable of making a successful Defence, or who in Time of Action shall improperly withdraw from the Fight,

shall, if he has acted traitorously, suffer Death; if he has acted from Cowardice shall suffer Death, or such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned; and if he has acted from Negligence, or through other Default, he shall be dismissed from Her Majesty's Service, with or without Disgrace, or shall suffer such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned.

3. Every Officer subject to this Act who shall forbear to pursue the Chase of any Enemy, Pirate, or Rebel, beaten or flying, or shall not relieve and assist a known Friend in View to the utmost of his Power, or who shall improperly forsake his Station, shall, if he has therein acted traitorously, suffer Death; if he has acted from Cowardice, suffer Death or such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned; if he has acted from Negligence, or through other Default, shall be dismissed from Her Majesty's Service, with Disgrace, or shall suffer such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned."
Bye, Alberto

I don't think you understand what the articles of war are saying:
(1)shall, if he has acted traitorously, suffer Death; (2)if he has acted from Cowardice shall suffer Death, or such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned; and (3)if he has acted from Negligence, or through other Default, he shall be dismissed from Her Majesty's Service, with or without Disgrace, or shall suffer such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned.
If is the operative word. Do you think that any of the above 3 clauses pertains to Leach and/or W-W?

Do you think Leach was a Traitor?

Do you think Leach was a coward?

Do you think Leach was negligent?
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

and I do not think you want or are ready to accept the fact that in order to avoid that simple question, ... that " IF " , ... all the data have been altered on June 1941 in order to prepare the July 1941 dispatches.

That simple question, if left behind and with evidences in support on 1941, was enough to compromise the rewards and recognition requests.

In my opinion, that was the reason why they changed the data, in order to surely remove that question form everybody thinking about what happened.

For that reason we had for 72 years .... 06.13 time for PoW retreat ... and about 15 sea miles for the 2 heavy cruisers distance from enemy, ... for that reason " The Plot " and the 2nd Board with Wake-Walker new declaration ... and Adm Tovey incorrect dispatches.

Now, ... 72 years after ... reading properly all the available documents still available and de-secreted, ... we know how it went and why.

Very simple, ... if you are willing to accept the truth.

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by alecsandros »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Very simple, ... if you are willing to accept the truth.

Bye Antonio :D
Truth is the hardest thing to swallow
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

alecsandros wrote:
RF wrote: How slow would you expect Bismarck's speed to be reduced to? I would think that even a speed down to 15 knots would be sufficient for Bismarck to escape if contact is completely lost.
... Well, I would expect somewhere to 20kts. But at least some of the damage would start to be repaired, and probably by mid-day May 25th, the ship would get back to ~ 24-25kts.

But I doubt she would get that far, as Suffolk and Norfolk would have an easy time keeping contact, with Bismarck (and her consort PRinz Eugen) moving at 20kts. The destroyers would attempt an attack, and then in the morning of the 25th of May, KGV + Repulse would make their interception.

They successfully shadowed the 28kts Bismarck throughout the day of May 24th, so...
If at DS POW is crippled quickly by a continued action, say by 6.30 AM, Bismarck then suddenly turns on Norfolk with the range down to 8 miles, Norfolk having already opened fire from its forward turrets, in five to ten minutes Norfolk could take say two direct hits that leaves the ship dead in the water with forward turrets destroyed. Prinz Eugen by now also has Norfolk under fire, Lutjens orders Lindemann to switch targets to Suffolk, which has also opened fire. Suffolk either stands in support of the other two British ships or has to flee - either way it is exposed fully to Bismarck fire for some minutes even with Bismarck down to 20 knots. It is highly likely that Suffolk would take direct 15 inch hits that would eliminate that ships capacity to shadow. Bismarck and Prinz Eugen then withdraw to south west and escape.
The one uncertainty in this scenario is how far a crippled POW is able to continue firing. By crippled I mean a hit that knocks out most of its engine power and 14 inch guns, but leaves the 5.25 inchers still able to fire so that Lutjens won't risk Prinz Eugen closing for torpedo attack.
I think this is a realistic scenario, the key is that by 7.15 AM the British have lost all contact with the two German ships, while the six destroyers Holland had are still at least nearly another hour before they arrive on the scene.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by alecsandros »

... I don't seee any of this happening.
Given the ranges, the battle would last a few minutes. By 6:05, Prince of Wales would lay smoke and retreat, after dealing damage to Bismarck and suffering damage in return.

Between 6:01 - 6:05, she had 4 minutes of firing with 9 guns. Considering 75% otput, and 1.5 rounds/minute/gun ordered, she could put up 50 shells. Given the range, I would expect 5 or 6 direct hits.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: just to be 100% clear: I'm not so presumptuous to say that I would have been better than anybody on May 24. I personally just DO HOPE that I would have acted better as an officer.
I would hope to do the same - and as I see it I would probably have disengaged with POW, though I would have doubts about that decision being executed inside 90 seconds... I would like to think the action would have continued to 6.13 AM but the ability of POW to continue set against the consequences of possible immediate loss without any further substantive damage to Bismarck would have to be uppermost in my mind. Maybe in those ten minutes the issue of just how many guns POW had firing effectively would be seen and that would be a critical factor in my decision. If alecsandross and yourself are correct in your contention that POW could give as good as it got then clearly there is a case for continuing the action and ordering Wake-Walker to give supporting fire.

But my impression is that the POW gunnery could not match Bismarck and had little chance of landing telling damage on Bismarck. With the risk of Bismarck being able to escape, with the risk of it being able to turn on the two cruisers and destroy them at leisure, of being under fire as well from a heavy cruiser also armed with torpedoes, I would in that situation disengage and join the shadowing forces, with the express intent of adding a battleship and two heavy cruisers to KGV and Repulse when could engage the following day - provided Bismarck was still being shadowed.
In any case, we are just evaluating the military behaviour of these officers based on the RN disciplinary rules and traditions, not judging them from a personal viewpoint.
It is a pity that this was not made clear from the start. Some of your early posts Alberto certainly gave me the impression of making it a personal matter, particulary also when at the same time counter arguments are either ignored or subjected to abuse.
Last edited by RF on Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:47 am, edited 3 times in total.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

and I do not think you want or are ready to accept the fact that in order to avoid that simple question, ... that " IF " , ... all the data have been altered on June 1941 in order to prepare the July 1941 dispatches.

That simple question, if left behind and with evidences in support on 1941, was enough to compromise the rewards and recognition requests.

In my opinion, that was the reason why they changed the data, in order to surely remove that question form everybody thinking about what happened.

For that reason we had for 72 years .... 06.13 time for PoW retreat ... and about 15 sea miles for the 2 heavy cruisers distance from enemy, ... for that reason " The Plot " and the 2nd Board with Wake-Walker new declaration ... and Adm Tovey incorrect dispatches.

Now, ... 72 years after ... reading properly all the available documents still available and de-secreted, ... we know how it went and why.

Very simple, ... if you are willing to accept the truth.

Bye Antonio :D
Antonio, after 114 pages we expect simple answers to simple and direct questions:

(
1)shall, if he has acted traitorously, suffer Death; (2)if he has acted from Cowardice shall suffer Death, or such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned; and (3)if he has acted from Negligence, or through other Default, he shall be dismissed from Her Majesty's Service, with or without Disgrace, or shall suffer such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned.

If is the operative word. Do you think that any of the above 3 clauses pertains to Leach and/or W-W?

1)Do you think Leach/W-W was a Traitor?

2)Do you think Leach/W-W was a coward?

3)Do you think Leach/W-W was negligent?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: ]
Hi Sean, do you really think that, having Churchill decided to celebrate the victory anyhow after May 27, he would have left any written proof of a Court-Martial request ?
Churchill was British Prime Minister, charged with the conduct of the whole war from the British standpoint. Why would he want to remove documentary evidence of a court martial request? What would he gain? With other pressing matters, particulary Crete and the Middle East situation why would he want to bother?
Churchill did from time to time come under criticism for his conduct of the war - for example in early 1942 over the loss of Tobruk, coming not long after the surrender at Singapore - but the critics, in Parliament, put on the spot of having to vote, just melted away. Churchill in 1941 was in an almost peerless position, why bother hiding a court martial request? He certainly didn't hide his suggestion of having KGV towed, which in naval terms was seen as a ridiculous proposition in the face of U-boat attack.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

RF wrote: "by RF » Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:41 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
just to be 100% clear: I'm not so presumptuous to say that I would have been better than anybody on May 24. I personally just DO HOPE that I would have acted better as an officer.[/quote}

I would hope to do the same - and as I see it I would probably have disengaged with POW, though I would have doubts about that decision being executed inside 90 seconds... I would like to think the action would have continued to 6.13 AM but the ability of POW to continue set against the consequences of possible immediate loss without any further substantive damage to Bismarck would have to be uppermost in my mind. Maybe in those ten minutes the issue of just how many guns POW had firing effectively would be seen and that would be a critical factor in my decision. If alecsandross and yourself are correct in your contention that POW could give as good as it got then clearly there is a case for continuing the action and ordering Wake-Walker to give supporting fire.

But my impression is that the POW gunnery could not match Bismarck and had little chance of landing telling damage on Bismarck. With the risk of Bismarck being able to escape, with the risk of it being able to turn on the two cruisers and destroy them at leisure, of being under fire as well from a heavy cruiser also armed with torpedoes, I would in that situation disengage and join the shadowing forces, with the express intent of adding a battleship and two heavy cruisers to KGV and Repulse when could engage the following day - provided Bismarck was still being shadowed.

In any case, we are just evaluating the military behaviour of these officers based on the RN disciplinary rules and traditions, not judging them from a personal viewpoint.

It is a pity that this was not made clear from the start. Some of your early posts Alberto certainly gave me the impression of making it a personal matter, particulary also when at the same time counter arguments are either ignored or subjected to abuse."
Thanks for amending your incorrect quote above, my opinion is NOT the one mentioned in your previous version !
Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Mar 06, 2014 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

alecsandros wrote:... I don't seee any of this happening.
Given the ranges, the battle would last a few minutes. By 6:05, Prince of Wales would lay smoke and retreat, after dealing damage to Bismarck and suffering damage in return.

Between 6:01 - 6:05, she had 4 minutes of firing with 9 guns. Considering 75% otput, and 1.5 rounds/minute/gun ordered, she could put up 50 shells. Given the range, I would expect 5 or 6 direct hits.
Experiance from the 27 May battle would suggest that more than 6 direct hits would be required; it would be a question of just how direct they would be. At close range we would be talking of gunnery degradation rather than immediate speed impairment from hits on the propulsion systems (except for below waterline hits).
From my perspective it would seem that a few minutes would be sufficient for Bismarck to cripple POW; given the accuracy of Bismarck's fire I can't see POW being able to fire those 50 shells, particulary if turrets and gun barrels get hit, or gunnery control destroyed. Extend to 15 or 20 minutes of sustained heavy fire - not just from a battleship but also a heavy cruiser as well - then I can agree with Karl Heidenreich's proposition that POW could be sunk.
I think your proposition has a chance of success - but I feel the probability is that Bismarck will win without sustaining major damage.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by alecsandros »

RF wrote:
alecsandros wrote:... I don't seee any of this happening.
Given the ranges, the battle would last a few minutes. By 6:05, Prince of Wales would lay smoke and retreat, after dealing damage to Bismarck and suffering damage in return.

Between 6:01 - 6:05, she had 4 minutes of firing with 9 guns. Considering 75% otput, and 1.5 rounds/minute/gun ordered, she could put up 50 shells. Given the range, I would expect 5 or 6 direct hits.
Experiance from the 27 May battle would suggest that more than 6 direct hits would be required; it would be a question of just how direct they would be. At close range we would be talking of gunnery degradation rather than immediate speed impairment from hits on the propulsion systems (except for below waterline hits).
From my perspective it would seem that a few minutes would be sufficient for Bismarck to cripple POW; given the accuracy of Bismarck's fire I can't see POW being able to fire those 50 shells, particulary if turrets and gun barrels get hit, or gunnery control destroyed. Extend to 15 or 20 minutes of sustained heavy fire - not just from a battleship but also a heavy cruiser as well - then I can agree with Karl Heidenreich's proposition that POW could be sunk.
I think your proposition has a chance of success - but I feel the probability is that Bismarck will win without sustaining major damage.
RF, you are not reading anything ?

Bismarck and PRinz Eugen took evasive manouvres by 6:01:30 in order to escape torpedoes. They returned to normal course at around 6:04
DUring this time their artillery performance was bad, with perhaps 1 single shell hitting Prince of Wales.

Again, all BB battles at medium range resulted in speed impairment, by underwater hits , and/or degradation of exposed machinery.

It's not anything definitive, but it's a scenario likely to happen IMHO. AND IT WAS LEACH's DUTY TO ATTEMPT TO DAMAGE THE ENEMY.

P.S. During her last battle, Bismarck was crippled by 4 or 5 heavy shells that hit her early on

P.S. 2 I see everybody is skimming over the comparison with Onslow and Glowworm. How does Leach compare to Sherbrooke for example ? In what amount did either of them honor the tradition ?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Are you always mixing words from other people to words from yourself ? Please read again my post , your post and AMEND your one as you are saying that I wrote what I NEVER WROTE ! Please don't mix my opinion with yours anymore as your opinions are 1000 kilometers far from my ones !
Thanks
Bye, Alberto
Abuse. This is just what I mean.

I was actually making an attempt to try and understand and reconcile our positions in the light of the evidence Antonio has presented.

I haven't ''mixed words'' at all. My responses were to your actual early posts, some of which were insolent to Wake-Walker. I have now amended my earlier post, I was having trouble editing in the quotation commands on my computer, for which I do humbly apologize.

But if there is no empathy intended on your part then so be it. Quite ironic really - I'm British, defending an alleged lack of aggression from two British officers while an Italian is arguing for attack..... we are indeed living in a different age to WW2.
Last edited by RF on Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:51 am, edited 3 times in total.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

alecsandros wrote:
Bismarck and PRinz Eugen took evasive manouvres by 6:01:30 in order to escape torpedoes. They returned to normal course at around 6:04
DUring this time their artillery performance was bad, with perhaps 1 single shell hitting Prince of Wales.
That is why I had allowed the DS action in my scenario to continue for longer than a few minutes, say to 6.30 AM. it may be that in those 4 minutes you highlight that POW can severly damage Bismarck, indeed I would give that a better chance than of a Swordfish being able to get a torpedo hit on Bismarck's rudders.... I'm still inclined to think Bismarck would ultimately come off best. It is an opinion, and I could of course end up being proved wrong.
Again, all BB battles at medium range resulted in speed impairment, by underwater hits , and/or degradation of exposed machinery.
It's not anything definitive, but it's a scenario likely to happen IMHO. AND IT WAS LEACH's DUTY TO ATTEMPT TO DAMAGE THE ENEMY.
I don't disagree with any of that.
P.S. During her last battle, Bismarck was crippled by 4 or 5 heavy shells that hit her early on
Yes indeed - I believe at least three came from Rodney with its 16 inch shells. Two did come from KGV, one blasting a very large hole in Bismarck's deck.

P.S. - I haven't mentioned Glowworm or Onslow, I don't really see any close comparison. Bismarck was an entirely different proposition to a Hipper class cruiser.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply