Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:22 am

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I still like you definition about this attitude Sean :
On this regard, I still like to know your opinion about RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker writing both correct and incorrect statements about the same event on a single document delivered to Adm Tovey on June 5, 1941.

How come WW can write PoW disengaging at 06.13 and continuing the battle with the Germans while retreating for some more minutes after receiving more hits, … and on another phrase just a page after on the same document write PoW disengaged 10 minutes after the battle started ( so 05.53 + 10 min = 06.03 ).
On another document he wrote that he saw PoW disengaging 2 minutes after Hood blew up.

I am sure you know that Norfolk turned away at 06.00, and sent a radio message at 06.15 telling Scapa Flow were Hood was sunk while sailing close to her sinking place.

It is just like what he did with the Diagram B and his sketches, his First Board declarations and signing of 10 sea miles from Hood at 06.00, … and few days after write he was 15 sea miles from Hood … than go to the Second Board of Inquiry with “ The Plot “ that is sure incorrect document as you surely have realized at this point … and call his previous deposition back.

What do you think about this way to act for a Royal Navy Flag Officer ?
Is this the " malarkey " you are talking about ?

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by wadinga » Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:48 pm

Hi Antonio,

It's a bit difficult to respond since I don't really know all the contents. The Gunnery Aspects report is on the Hood site dated 7th June but I guess you have another report direct to Tovey which includes the post 06:00 range data, or as you would say the pre 06:00 ranges transposed in time to cover up Wake-Walker's imagined transgressions.

As you are well aware, I consider his original estimate of 20,000 yds to Hood was a pure guess, given to an enquiry solely concerned with what he and other witnesses could see of Hood's loss, and whose questions were concerned with colour, size and nature of the explosion. As such it was irrelevant what distance away Hood was, and this makes constant repetition that he and others "signed" or "declared" it was 10 miles equally irrelevant. They also might have said the explosion was a particular shade of orange, but picking out a different shade from another witness is not evidence of skulduggery.

After some enterprising type produced the Triangle of Doom, "proving" that Norfolk was only 11 miles from Bismarck, (based on the aforementioned Declarations and signings) the 10 mile value became one of many shortcomings of the first enqury, but it was wanting many more witness statements requiring a second .

Since the second enquiry was also, not under any circumstances, an enquiry into tactics or actions that might conceivably be constrained to have resulted in Hood's loss, a map to give the enquiry some idea of the relative position of the witnesses was created the day before the enquiry, the "Plot". Based on contradictory evidence, and generated at short notice, it is riddled with inconsistencies. So what? Again, what the enquiry wanted was what the explosion looked like, so as to determine what happened aboard Hood and whether the witness was 10 or 15 miles away was irrelevant.

You have reported the post 06:00 range information, but how did WW give it to Tovey?

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:49 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

embarrassing for any Officer ( like I am ), ... in particular for a Royal Navy Flag Officer ... isn't it ?

Anyway,

Wake-Walker forwarded his report and all attachments to Adm Tovey in written signed form on June 5th, 1941.

Document number is No. X . 856/189.

On point 10 he wrote that PoW turned away at 06.13 making smoke and after was seen being hit by enemy salvoes while on her retiring course.

On point 20 he wrote that he saw her retiring after 10 minutes engagement at the end of which her salvoes were falling short and she was short of ONE gun ( 10-1 =9 ) and with her bridge wrecked.

Diagram B is showing the only possible position Norfolk can be given her course and speed starting from her own position at 05.35 and 05.41 available on other official maps.

But WW wrote he was at 15 sea miles based on an incorrect map : The Plot !

I think it is fair to believe the evidences and the possible things, ... rather than follow the "errors" of those Officers.

Never forgetting that on summer 1941 those "errors", once blessed, signed and forwarded in summary by the C in C Home Fleet, ... provided the possibility to move from a potential inquiry ... to a rewarding medal.

But this is not so important anymore, it happened and I am ok with it, I understood the reasons behind it.

What is NOT acceptable is that on 2014 still we have new books written with statements like : " ... at 06.13 PoW retreated after a 21 minutes engagement and 13 minutes fighting alone after Hood was sunk. "

This is what those " errors " enabled for almost 73 years ... and still happens ... with PRO official documents listed as reference at the end.

Despite this by the Royal Navy Admiralty :
PoW%20retreating%20from%20Battle%20Summary%20No%205_1942%2001.jpg
PoW%20retreating%20from%20Battle%20Summary%20No%205_1942%2001.jpg (239.3 KiB) Viewed 1103 times

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:10 pm

Hello everybody,

here what this " ... big "innocent" collection of errors and misinterpretations due to the "fog of war " ... " caused and are still causing :


http://www.amazon.com/Royal-Studies-Mil ... 1403917736
Levy_RN_HF_WW2.jpg
Levy_RN_HF_WW2.jpg (104.35 KiB) Viewed 1100 times
... and I have other examples with same statements written recently with Royal Navy First Sea Lord preface and the book written by a Professor of Dartmouth Royal Navy College.

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 695
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Steve Crandell » Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:34 pm

Obviously we can find statements completely at odds with each other, and succeeding statements are sometimes made in an effort to make these conflicting statements match with what seems, after the fact, to have actually happened. These inconsistencies don't necessarily represent falsehoods.

I seriously doubt W-W knew that PoW had been hit on her compass platform at the time it happened.

Meanwhile, on PoW we have the spectacle of the flagship blowing up in front of them and a course change toward the enemy to avoid the wreckage. This had to be startling and disorienting to say the least. The Icon of the navy gone in a minute. Then a port rudder order to open the rapidly closing range, followed soon after by a hit from Bismarck which kills most of the people on the compass platform, undoubtedly disorienting her captain for a time. There is blood everywhere, logs are destoyed, and rampant chaos. Meanwhile, the ship continues to turn to port. And so on. Pandemonium for several minutes.

After the action everyone tries to report what happened. Later they compare notes and realize what they reported is inconsistent and try to make sense out of it. New reports are filed. Later still, another iteration. Some things are altered or left out in the version for public consumption.

Do we really expect everyone to be consistent through all this? Look at a typical crime scene. If you have three witnesses, you will probably have three different versions of what happened.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:18 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Steve Crandell,

you wrote :
Do we really expect everyone to be consistent through all this? Look at a typical crime scene. If you have three witnesses, you will probably have three different versions of what happened.
Correct and I agree !

But with acceptable tolerances and without the direct responsibilities of the witnesses being directly related into the different declarations provided :wink: .

No judge in this world will accept something like that without an external expert verification.

This is what was missed at the time, ... I think you know that in Military procedures, ... this is required to be done by the superior documents scrutiny and guaranteed with the final acceptance signature by your next in command direct line.

This is were Adm Tovey direct responsibility apply for having accepted and signed the WW report, using it as a data reference for his dispatches.

You can read above that as far as 06.13 PoW disengagement refers to, it was the Royal Navy British Admiralty telling everybody they were both incorrect.

For the 15 sea miles of Norfolk and Suffolk, we have several other documents and maps telling us they were both incorrect as well, including the correct Diagram B.

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

slaterat
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:01 pm

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by slaterat » Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:30 am

A lot of this information isn't ground breaking . Robert J Winklareth's "The Battle of Denmark Strait" published in 2012 gives 6:05 as the time for the POW sharp turn away followed by the ragged salvos from Y turret and the Bismarck ceasing fire at 6:10. His bibliography is huge and he uses many of the documents referred to in this thread including the PRO and German sources as well. Tovey's report which is probably where the 6:13 time comes from, splits the difference from the times reported by the Suffolk and Norfolk. So if you were observing the battle form the cruisers and the Bismarck's last salvo is at 6:10, and you wait for a minute or two for the next one which doesn't come you write 6:12 or 6:14 as the time the battle ended. I just don't see any coverup here.

Slaterat

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:48 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Slaterat,

The only problem is that we already know quite well the author you refer to :wink: .

I hope that on 2012 he has at least realized how to publish the Bismarck photos on the correct way (not reversing them) and did realize were Bismarck was during the battle.

So far he is still at the same poor level of overall knowledge that the "plagiarist" is : both are unreliable.

You may want to take a look at their previous masterpiece :

http://www.amazon.com/Bismarck-Chase-Li ... 1557501831

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

slaterat
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:01 pm

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by slaterat » Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:03 pm

@ Antonio

Yes I was aware of the authors previous work and the very critical reviews it received. It made me somewhat leery of purchasing "The Battle of Denmark Strait" . Fortunately it was available as an E book on Kindle and was very inexpensive, so I took a chance and overall I have found it quite satisfactory. Basically it agrees with much of the time frame of the battle that has been discussed in this thread, which is no surprise as it uses much of the same sources.

Slaterat

User avatar
Wordy
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:43 am
Location: Rotherham, England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Wordy » Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Steve Crandell,

you wrote :
Do we really expect everyone to be consistent through all this? Look at a typical crime scene. If you have three witnesses, you will probably have three different versions of what happened.
Correct and I agree !

But with acceptable tolerances and without the direct responsibilities of the witnesses being directly related into the different declarations provided :wink: .

No judge in this world will accept something like that without an external expert verification.

This is what was missed at the time, ... I think you know that in Military procedures, ... this is required to be done by the superior documents scrutiny and guaranteed with the final acceptance signature by your next in command direct line.

This is were Adm Tovey direct responsibility apply for having accepted and signed the WW report, using it as a data reference for his dispatches.

You can read above that as far as 06.13 PoW disengagement refers to, it was the Royal Navy British Admiralty telling everybody they were both incorrect.

For the 15 sea miles of Norfolk and Suffolk, we have several other documents and maps telling us they were both incorrect as well, including the correct Diagram B.

Bye Antonio :D
Why have you ignored the rest of Steve's post? He's basically hit the nail on the head(as others have done many times in this thread) yet you still continue to ignore bit of posts you don't like(as you have done many times in this thread) and continue with these distasteful accusations against 3 (the thread started with 1) Royal Navy officers that they are either cowards or covering up for cowards.
In the Highest Tradition of the Royal Navy - Captain John Leach MVO DSO

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

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:13 pm

@Wordy: and why have you ignored all the facts presented by Antonio and why do you continue to believe a version of facts that is simply not credible anymore ? :negative:

By the way, I see from your avatar that you liked the book on the life of Capt.Leach ("in the highest Tradition of the RN......... ").
This book says even that the "finest hour" of Capt. Leach was ..... when he decided to disengage (I would add, after receiving the first hit on board) :oops: , instead of December 10, 1941 when he acted and died like a RN officer. :clap:

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: 3973
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:53 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:@Wordy: and why have you ignored all the facts presented by Antonio and why do you continue to believe a version of facts that is simply not credible anymore ? :negative:

By the way, I see from your avatar that you liked the book on the life of Capt.Leach ("in the highest Tradition of the RN......... ").
This book says even that the "finest hour" of Capt. Leach was ..... when he decided to disengage (I would add, after receiving the first hit on board) :oops: , instead of December 10, 1941 when he acted and died like a RN officer. :clap:

Bye, Alberto
I think we all applaud Antonio's desire and efforts to write a better history of the battle - but we are all very concerned about his crusade to pin the labels of cowards and criminal conspirators onto senior RN officers.

Your last sentence is bizarre; Leach had valid reasons for withdrawing at DS, and although I dispute the timing of events that led to that withdrawal I don't dispute that it was the right thing to do, and that it directly contributed to the eventual loss of the Bismarck. The suggestion that RN officers must, in effect, commit suicide to prove their bravery is offensive, at say the least.

User avatar
Wordy
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:43 am
Location: Rotherham, England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Wordy » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:54 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:@Wordy: and why have you ignored all the facts presented by Antonio and why do you continue to believe a version of facts that is simply not credible anymore ? :negative:

By the way, I see from your avatar that you liked the book on the life of Capt.Leach ("in the highest Tradition of the RN......... ").
This book says even that the "finest hour" of Capt. Leach was ..... when he decided to disengage (I would add, after receiving the first hit on board) :oops: , instead of December 10, 1941 when he acted and died like a RN officer. :clap:

Bye, Alberto
Because they are credible and have been for along time. It seems everyone in this thread apart from you and your countryman think Capt Leach & admirals Wake-Walker & Tovey haven't done anything wrong and all this research isn't going to anything.

Not read it yet(but I will), I wanted to show my support for a brave individual who's reputation & bravery is being called into question in this(bordering on the ridiculous) thread.

Also I didn't realise there was a requirement for Royal Navy officers to die in a certain way. :think:
dunmunro wrote:I think we all applaud Antonio's desire and efforts to write a better history of the battle - but we are all very concerned about his crusade to pin the labels of cowards and criminal conspirators onto senior RN officers.
I'm confident his efforts will get the ignoring they deserve outside of this thread. :wink:
In the Highest Tradition of the Royal Navy - Captain John Leach MVO DSO

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

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by northcape » Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:01 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote: , instead of December 10, 1941 when he acted and died like a RN officer. :clap:

Bye, Alberto
No offence, but how can you applaud to the death of an officer who is most needed by his country in hard-pressed times? What sense does it make? This seems utterly thoughtless to me.

Or, to quote from another book referring to December 10th and Admiral Tom Philips: "So Great Britain loses another outstanding officer because of the time-honoured tradition that the captain has to go down with his ship."

This thread is becoming a bit bizarre, I think.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:32 am

Hello everybody,

I think that if a crusade is noticeable in this thread is the one that the defenders of those officers are doing in line of principle despite the evidences only because they were Royal Navy Senior Officers, only because they were British.

I have been asked NOT to use words like false or wrong because those were not very educated in your opinion, even if in Italian those are not offensive words.
Respectful of your native language sensibility, I changed with incorrect just to respect your desire.

Now it is my turn to ask for education on this discussion.

This said, I underline once again that the incorrect data we are discussing, so 06.13 PoW retirement time and 15 sea miles distance for Norfolk and Suffolk were written by WW and Tovey on their official documents, it is not my personal theory, it is a fact.

Similarly, the declaration of 06.13 time for PoW being incorrect was done by Royal Navy Admiralty on 1947/48, not by me, it is another fact.
The correct Norfolk and Suffolk distances are into the RN Official documents like original maps and the Diagram B, I only took them out and showed to you all.

If you do not like that I underline the facts that those data were the difference between a potential inquiry for those officers and some medals, sorry but it is your problem, not mine. Just refer to my first statement above and try to think " SUPER PARTES " if you can.

Finally, I confirm that it is not positive from an historical stand point that still, on 2014, books about this argument are written with those incorrect statements on them.
At least they should use the Admiralty corrections and the correct maps if they refer to those documents.

I do not see anything wrong from my side on underlining those incorrect facts and their direct relation to the Military procedures in place into RN.

@ Wordy,

it seems you are following the thread since long time, so please tell me how do you evaluate the conduct of those 3 Officers given what I have showed from Official documents.

What do you think about all this ... big "innocent" collection of errors and misinterpretations due to the "fog of war ".

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

Post Reply