May 23/24 night shadowing and interception approach CS1/BC1

[Cag]

Hi All

I do have hard copies of the PoW Norfolk and Suffolk logs, they were obtained under private use rules so I'm not sure I can post them.

I did offer to send details to Antonio etc but obviously can't send details to everyone which is a shame! (I'd never be available for work!) The logs give no course details really, the general term used is 'various' or an altered course to a certain degree but with no previous note of course. Norfolk's log pre noon on the 24th contains no course detail except at 06.40 in the remarks section 'continued shadowing enemy on MLA 220 degrees 24 knots.

On the 23rd at 21.30 it states "movement various to keep on port quarter of enemy MLA 220 adjusted according to enemy reports from Suffolk". It also states in the header of the 24th May that she was going from the Denmark Strait to the Southward and shadowing Bismarck and Prinz Eugen (Her log position at 0800 is 62 50N 32 38W using DR).

Suffolks is similar with various and no course noted her position is recorded at 0800 63 05N 32 34W. PoW is more detailed giving courses up to 0600 on the 24th and then course changes in the remarks section actually too detailed to post! It also gives details of those killed on the 24th and the sailor who died on the 25th. PoW position on the 24th at 0800 was by DR 62 48N 32 22W.

To be fair to Antonio is basing movements on the map given very graciously by Dunmonro (Thank you!) and therfore is not using the logs but I must say Norfolk's log written at the time states 'shadowing' whether we wish to believe it or not the ships crew believed they were in the process of shadowing. They were in a position to spot the enemy turning away from Suffolk whether they would have been able to spot this in the inclement weather who knows but the enemy didn't know that either.

Later in Tovey's report there was a discussion between Leach and Wake-Walker as regards shadowing and permission to open fire on turning away obviously a known procedural event carried out whilst shadowing.

As always best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

I thank you once again for your offer, ... I think that from the Suffolk and Norfolk war diaries we cannot fully realize their tracks, ... for that I use their Strategical Plots ( not having unfortunately the Tactical ones yet, with many more details on them )

The PLAN 3 that Dunmunro kindly gave us was made by merging the Suffolk and Norfolk strategical plots with the PoW official operation map ... but by doing so they made some relative positioning errors ( the Hood/PoW track is incorrectly positioned as I showed you already ) and some other adjustements, ... but for our current analysis and discussion is more than enough ...

From the Suffolk and Norfolk war diaries one can take the very precise speed by hour and some key information when written, ... plus their FIX geographical position at given time.

Merging all the above information and working out my map on a very large scale, ... I can see all things more clearly and realize better what happened, ... one day everybody will see it too ...

@ all,

Coming back to my last post, what is evident is that differently than really happened, with 2 different efforts performed by Suffolk and Norfolk, there was for 75 years the evident intent to merge them in a common evaluation and description, ... incorrectly.

Here the written evidence supporting the PLAN 3 map we are looking at, directly from the Battle Summary Number 5 ( 1948 version ) from the RN Admiralty, ... from Dr. Erich Grove book.

Night_shadowing_May23_24_Plan_3.jpg (82.83 KiB) Viewed 782 times

As you can read the 2 cruisers efforts evaluation is always merged, ... and reduced to few statemenst about it, ... while we are now carefully analizing that night and we are finally able to differentiate them, ... because they did NOT do the same efforts.

As simple and irrefutable as that can be, ... this is what really happened.

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

That's ok Antonio any details you require please let me know and I'll attempt to help.

I am a little confused as to the basis of your non shadowing thesis.

Both Suffolk and Norfolk have log entries of 'shadowing' Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.

Both ships were in fact following the enemy within prescribed instructions.

Norfolk had the inferior radar which is presumably why Suffolk was asigned the Denmark Strait patrol to assist in shadowing.

In bad visibility Norfolk relied on Suffolks and later PoW better rdf capabilities but was still in a 'shadowing role' simply saying that because at points she was not in sight of the enemy or further away than Suffolk means she was no longer shadowing is not really fair.

Both ships were, even at the greatest distance from the enemy, we're still in close range and able to regain contact support each other and both submitted positional reports to enable others to home in on the enemy.

Both ships were to port and starboard of the enemy to deny them ground in which to manoeuvre away which is why after attempts to do so Lütjens maintained his course and reported radars and shadowing.

If a ship has a log entry that states shadowing enemy then that ship considers itself to be shadowing the enemy. I don't have to have sight of the enemy if at my disposal I have another vessel that aids my surveillance but I must place myself in another position to close off any other escape and remain 'in shadow' of the enemy?

I do sadly feel that most if not all threads are in some way contrived to further a cover up theory for a future book which is why I wanted to retire from the forum, again I say I remain open minded but there are still sufficient opposing facts that do not allow me to call 'case closed' and after all families reputations are at stake.

I am much closer to Alberto Alecsandros Dunmonro Wadinga Mr Saxon and Mr Cardogan on this, and it may be an old fashioned ideal, I don't mind debate and am happy to hear others opinions and theories but I do not intend to write a publication that may end up in the undeserved destruction of a persons reputation, I'm happy to put forward an opinion but my conscience wont allow anything else.

As always best wishes to you all
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

reading your post I fully understand what you mean and you feel.

It does not matter in which way the " shadowing " was executed, this is just one of the many aspects of this whole story.

The problem here is that since I have started bringing out the many incorrectly reported aspects of this story, I saw the reactions of persons that like you, just cannot take it in a very simple way being just a naval battle historical reconstruction done 75 years after the events. For you it is much more than this and it shows clearly.

I do not judge anybody, ... I never will, ... and I think I fully understand all the many reasons behind those reactions.

But now I think you can understand my post's closing signature too :

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 )

If by bringing out the truth my goal was simply to fully restore ViceAdm L. Holland reputation thru it, on the other hand it is obvious that somebody else " light " was consequently going to be " darkened ", and that is the price for the truth.

I was and I am still fully aware about it, ... but I have no other options, ... and I have no fear.

I will continue my reconstruction work that is almost completely done and one day I will publish it on a book, this is for sure.

Thanks in any case for your sincerity and fairness and all the help you provided me.

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

Thank you Antonio for your kind words, I understand your reasons and it is a very honourable thing to do for you to inform people of the way in which Vice Admiral Holland did achieve his aim of interception which is often not recognised. My only reservation is in achieving this someone else's reputation has to be damaged (In the same way as you say was Hollands) in the the process and as my mother used to say two wrongs do not make a right.

Developments in ballistics and the often also forgotten fact of excellent German gunnery thwarted Hollands overall plans and the outcome is history. We must also remember that a greater number of Germans died in the chase and the loss of Bismarck which is something else often forgotten.

I still am available if you require any info, I do still believe that at whatever distance Wake-Walker was in the process of shadowing the enemy as borne out by the distinct insertion in the header of the ships log that as far as the crew of Norfolk was concerned they were 'shadowing Bismarck and Prinz Eugen'.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

thank you to you, ... it is always a pleasure to meet and discuss with fair and correct persons.

I see your point, but as I told you I think that the truth at this point is what everybody deserves.

I am with you about the crew of both heavy cruisers being committed for the shadowing duty they had to perform, ... and as you can see on the 2 IWM photos I attach here below they have been also addressed about their duty by RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker just before departing for the Denmark Strait.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205138484

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205138485

All I am saying is that at the end the patrolling efforts while doing it have been different.
This is very evident by simply analyzing the data and the facts.
The missed enemy interception by Hood at 02.00 being due to incorrect geographical positions and consequent enemy position information provided by both the heavy cruisers.

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

Just a quick post for your information Antonio. Norfolk did not arrive in Iceland until the 19th May. And then went on patrol meeting Suffolk at sea.

They both refuelled on the 22nd but at different places so I'm not sure they ever met in harbour only at sea.

Also the photos are given a date of June 1941 so that would indicate post Bismarck.

Hope this helps
Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

thanks you very much for your information.

If you read on the photo caption, not on the header were you are right it is written June 1941 ... ... but aside on the bottom right corner of the photos, ... it is written that the photos were taken before departing for the Denmark Strait.

Here it is for the A 4169 as well as for the A 4170, it is the same caption aside the Coote, R.G.G. (Lt) photo :

Rear Admiral W F Wake-Walker addressing the ship's company of HMS SUFFOLK under the 8" guns on the quarterdeck, prior to proceeding to the Denmark Straits.

Got your inputs for the Suffolk and Norfolk arrival, refueling and departing from Iceland.

Can you tell me what happened precisely on both warships after the May 27th ?

For the HMS Norfolk, what happened to her after May 27th, ... until she arrived in harbor, ... which harbor and which day precisely ?

Same request I have for the HMS Suffolk after she left the Bismarck chase, ... where she went, ... and when ( day ) she arrived in harbor and where precisely.

Thank you very much in advance ... Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

On the 27th Norfolk sighted BS at 07.49 at 9 miles and began to open the range to shadow. She sighted 4th flotilla destroyers at 05.15 and kgv and rodney at 08.17 who opened fire at 08.49.
Norfolk opened fire at 08.55 firing torpedos at 09.06 and 10.10 being joined by Dorsetshire at 09.41. Norfolk ceased fire on BS at 10.20 and headed back for the UK.

She was attacked by the Luftwaffe at 08.50-09.15 on the 28th and sighted land at 21.00hrs.

She anchored at Greenoch at 03.10 on the 29th May to take on oil water and provisions.

She remained at Greenoch till 22.20 on the 31st of May Wake-Walker had left the ship on the 30th and the court of inquiry into the loss of Hood arrived on the 31st being aboard from 15.40 to 16.10 (half an hour).

Suffolk was at sea on patrol at around latitude 57N and between 31-38W on the 27th in foggy weather visibility down at points to half a mile. This continued on the 28th in the same general area but heading West which continued on the 29th.

She continued West on the 30th her steering gyro was found to be wandering (possibly causing her positional problems?) which was corrected and she continued to the ice pack sighting the aurora boarealis and finally anchoring in Conception bay at 05.26 on the 31st May.

Hope this is of help
Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

many, many thanks for those information CAG.

But Conception Bay is in Canada, ... ... do you have the exact information on when exactly she was back into an UK harbor ?
Which day and where ?

Thanks

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

If you read on the photo caption, not on the header were you are right it is written June 1941 ... ... but aside on the bottom right corner of the photos, ... it is written that the photos were taken before departing for the Denmark Strait.

Here it is for the A 4169 as well as for the A 4170, it is the same caption aside the Coote, R.G.G. (Lt) photo :

Rear Admiral W F Wake-Walker addressing the ship's company of HMS SUFFOLK under the 8" guns on the quarterdeck, prior to proceeding to the Denmark Straits.

Denmark Straits is a place name, not a battle.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everyybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you are correct Marc, ... that is why I asked CAG about the correct date that HMS Suffolk came back in UK.

While we wait for the availability of June and also July 1941 war diaries of the HMS Suffolk maybe we can do some reasoning based on Capt Ellis submitted documents.

Like this one :

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09suff.htm

From: The Commanding Officer, H.M.S. Suffolk Date: 11th June 1941 Ref. No. 1706/006.

To: The Rear-Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron.

where at the bottom it is written that :

No. 7. Tactical Plots. (2)

(2) Not reproduced in this publication. The Tactical Plots were retained by the Rear-Admiral Commanding First Cruiser Squadron in connection with the report required by H.F. 01325/113 of 8th July, 1941.

The same HMS Suffolk Tactical Plots that Capt Ellis mentioned on his autobiography ... that surely everybody remember very well ...

It is possible that HMS Suffolk came back in UK on June 9th, 1941 because Capt Ellis wrote : " It is regretted that, owing to the ship having been continuously at sea on other operations since the above until 9th June ... " ... and that was the reason why Capt Ellis ( like no one from HMS Suffolk ) was not taken as a witness by Adm Blake during the Hood First board of inquiry ...

Still he was able to provide some valuable and important information ...

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

I'm sorry Antonio I'm afraid to say I only have May logs for Norfolk and Suffolk. Naval history.net gives a vague run down of both ships operations in June etc (Norfolk in Scapa and Suffolk in Iceland IIRC).

I only have all logs for the PoW and have one for Indomitable prior to her sailing to join Force G (PoW and later Repulse before becoming Force Z). I would like to get kgv for May as this may reveal if Vice-Admiral Holland visited Tovey prior to sailing on the 21st.

I've looked through the logs again and can't really find anything that suggests Norfolk and Suffolk were together except when at sea. It is part of the orders that control ships logs that they record visits by senior officers and ships in harbour or entering or leaving and Suffolks May log does not record Norfolk except in meeting at sea or that Wake-Walker addressed the ships crew or even visited the ship and if this occurred it should have done.

Hope this helps
Best wishes
Cag

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

do not worry, ... you already gave me a good help with your information, ... many thanks again.

Next time I will be in KEW at the PRO, I will make sure to get both Suffolk and Norfolk entire war diaries of May, June, July and August 1941, ... so I can read thru them with no problems.

At that point we will be able to correctly realize if the above 2 photos were taken before or after the Bismarck chase, ... but in any case those 2 photos are historically very important ... one way or the other ...

What is important to me on this moment is to have realized that it seems that until June 9th, 1941 at least ... the HMS Suffolk was either in Canada ( Newfoundland ) or at sea sailing back to UK, ... as for your war diariy input and for Ltnt Paton too :

During 25th. and until Bismarck had been found Suffolk had maintained a high degree of readiness. It was with great relief that the news of her location and subsequent sinking was received by the ship’s company, though with a feeling of admiration for her fight against hopeless odds. We were sent to St. John’s, Newfoundland to refuel and take on stores.

http://www.ellsbury.com/hmssuffolk.htm

... so with no possibilities to have obtained inputs from other sources while communicating some requested information to be provided ...

During the action three hits were observed on Bismarck from the heavy ships' fire.

... and this is very important ...

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

I have been hunting through the back pages of the Plot, and have discovered where good ol' Marc posted the section of W-W 's sketch map accompanying his Report where Norfolk "ran away SE ten miles" at 03:00. You know that is the map you have access to , but prefer to use a published and probably further from the truth printed version. The problem is one of scale, where when using these tiny scales, in order to represent a simple manouevre like a brief turnaway and nearly immediate return to base course it ends up exaggerrated in size, so as to be legible especially when annotated. Looking at this (blown up on a printer) it is clear that the triangle mark showing the 03:20 position is sometime after regaining a closing course on Bismarck's presumed track and 03:00 is sometime before a turnaway is made. Looking at the representation of 28 miles covered between 02:00 and 03:00 and 04:00 and 05:00 it is clear the runaway is no more than two miles maximum. Therefore the ten miles SE is incorrect.

The same draughtsmen's exagerration is evident on the published map example when Norfolk was engaged by Bismarck at 20:30 the previous evening, taking five salvoes, three straddles and splinter damage while having to disappear into the fog before looping round to take up her shadowing position astern.

If these small "not to scale" representations are your only source for inventing allegations that W-W ran away from various contacts, your case is even shakier than I thought.

All the best

wadinga