The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

With respect, your opinion, laid out here is immaterial, but if it is any consolation, so is mine.

All that matters is Pound's and he said W-W's actions were admirable on the evening of the 24th of May.

What could have changed his mind by the time Tovey came into harbour? Well W-W lost track of Bismarck, but that was always a likely event. So I think we can safely dismiss the McMullen variant of Tovey being pestered by phone on arrival, and all that remains is the alternate variant where after examining reports, Pound comes up with the idea after some time for some reason.

However he was probably a bit busy with Crete campaign, where the Navy was taking a pounding, so he more likely just dished out the medals. Twenty years later Tovey recalls a conversation and imagines it different to the way it actually was, and a legend is born.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

OK, I se your opinion about Adm Pound.

Do you mind to express yourself about Adm Tovey and RearAdm Wake-WAlker actions, ... I mean the sudden " innocent errors " they made on the first days of June 1941 as well :

I have provided you above other reasons for Wake-Walker to be worried about a court martial after his " suicidal " signed declarations of being at 10 sea miles from Hood and a bit more from the enemy at the Hood First Board of Inquiry.

But it took him only 3/4 days to " make up his mind " on a very different way, since on June 4th, 1941 he signed a report declaring he was at 15 sea miles from Hood ... and consequently out of the enemy range ...

On the same report WW started the " innocent error " of 06.13 instead of 06.03 for PoW retreat time, ... while only few days before Adm Tovey on a May 30th, 1941 own signed document it was declared being occurred " after a couple of minutes after Hood explosion " ... so around 06.03 ...

But apparently ... Adm Tovey did not realize all those " innocent errors " by Wake-Walker ... and we know well what he wrote on his July 5th, 1941 dispatches at point 17 and 19, ... do we ?

YES, we do : 06.13 and 15 sea miles.

You surely noticed that the 15 sea miles had been " evaluated " stated and signed, long before " The Plot " by Pinchin ...

Poor Pinchin only had to make it in " paper format " for the Hood Second board ... one way or the other ... and we know how he did it ...

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Sean,

Wadinga wrote: ".....Twenty years later Tovey recalls a conversation and imagines it different to the way it actually was, and a legend is born."

...and Adm Sir Henry Leach, being totally ignorant of RN stuff, lightly trusted the "legend" that stained the reputation of his father ? Come on....

If Henry Leach just suspected that the CM request was a "legend", he would never have considered it as a consolidated fact.

Re. W-W "admirable shadowing" (even lacking the willingness to re-engage), I guess that Pound's admiration ended shortly later, when the Rear Admiral lost the BS.....

Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

I am disappointed to read that as a seaman, who can envisage what shadowing for over 24 hours at high speed in fog, show showers and the dark against an opponent who can disable or destroy you with a single salvo, you can believe it would be justified for a superior to arrange a Court Martial for loss of contact in such conditions. Such a glib observation

I guess that Pound's admiration ended shortly later, when the Rear Admiral lost the BS.....

is more worthy of a landsman unaware of shipboard realities. Please do not let your determination to support the prosecution cause, come what may, as it dissipates due to lack of any real evidence, overcome your judgement as a former serving officer. Your experience of real conditions at sea, like that of myself and other contributors, is of immense value to those enthusiasts here who have never even stepped on deck.

The Admiralty message on the evening of the 24th rightly praises Wake-Walker for his exceptional success in hanging on in such trying conditions. Admirable is the word they used. Eventually W-W's luck runs out. The Admiralty has made dispositions in case of such a likely eventuality, and contact is resumed.

Can you confirm you have read the Court Martial account in "Endure No Makeshifts" since Antonio has not reproduced it? Sir Henry presents the story entirely without comment. As a man of action, it would appear such "ancient history" is of little interest to him.
He has obviously spent no time when he was in his exalted position trying to find additional evidence, probably because there is none to be found for an event that never happened. "Father was awarded the Distinguished Service Order. " For Sir Henry the case is closed satisfactorily, there being nobody left alive to apologise for the accusation, if indeed such an accusation ever actually happened.

Willingness to believe a thing may have happened is not the same as it actually having happened.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

@ Wadinga

Hi Sean,
just to clarify my opinion here:
I don't underestimate the difficulty of shadowing the enemy in such conditions. On the contrary, if you remember, I said already on another thread that the idea to keep contact instead of re-engaging was wrong due to the high probability to loose contact.

What I'm saying is that, after having pressed for a re-engagement and having received W-W long and detailed defensive answer listing all the good reasons for not doing that, the admiralty must have though to encourage W-W at least to keep contact. The BS loss was for sure a reason to evaluate negatively the whole behavior of W-W that day.
Don't forget that Tovey himself in his final report on the BS action, said that, for the future, the shadowing must be done at a shorter range than it was done with the BS.....

In any case your explanation why Sir Henry Leach trusted the CM request looks a bit convoluted.... If he said that a CM was "unfairly" requested it just means that he was aware that a CM was actually requested.
It was such an important episode for his father's career and honor that, if he had a minimum doubt about it, he would have stated it clearly, speaking of "rumors" instead of giving it as a fact as he did.

Bye, Alberto

[A Raven]

Mr Virtuani,
It was Wake-Walkers decision to shadow (generally) at the maximum range of Suffolk's type 284 gunnery radar, (24000 yards).
This was the very first time that radar had been used in this manner, additionally there was NO procedure for radar shadowing laid down in any form.

It was only after the battle, that instructions were written up as to how to use radar for shadowing. Procedures that were laid out in "lessons learned", one of which was to stay well within radar range of an enemy. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

You mention that Tovey's final report contains mention of shadowing at shorter ranges. This is not true. Tovey's final report which was written well after the end of the war, contains NO mention of this aspect of the affair. Tovey writes about this in an earlier report.

PS In the very late fourties there is a paper (a 'Y' service file) on the affair, that covers the reasons why the KGV went off in the wrong direction. Very interesting, I had to do some cross referencing to find the supporting documentation.

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Glad to hear your enthusiasm for the prosecution case has not totally subjugated your shared experience of the reality of operational at sea conditions. However I'm a bit confused by

if you remember, I said already on another thread that the idea to keep contact instead of re-engaging was wrong due to the high probability to loose contact.

Re-engaging might have meant damage and that would certainly mean loss of contact. Admirable means the Admiralty was perfectly happy with W-W's actions so far and wished him luck in hanging on through the dark hours. They realised he was doing all that skill could deliver, but good luck would still be vital. However, unfortunately his good luck didn't hold. You believe His Lordships considered his behaviour was admirable, unless/until something went wrong later, in which case it would retrospectively become not admirable? Now whose thinking is convoluted?

Sir John Leach in his autobiography nowhere says

that a CM was "unfairly" requested

Have you actually read page 5?? (Here's a clue - what does he call Sir Dudley?) It is a completely bland, neutral retelling of the Court Martial story. He does not dignify it with an opinion. Since every book (virtually) since Kennedy had included this legend of perfidious Winston/Pound he could hardly leave it out, but unless he wanted to engage in a detailed defence (we have spent years arguing) which he evidently does not, he shrugs his shoulders and moves on. It is after all an autobiography. He wants to get to the bit where he saves the Royal Navy, Maggie Thatcher and the Falkland Islands.

Since it is included during a passage when he describes being in the cruiser Mauritius before his meeting with his father, it is a little confusing temporally. A more logical location would have been as a postscript after the meeting description. As you know in the meeting description he details the injuries his father received and the shambles of PoW's compass platform. The very factors the prosecution has sought to minimise since the beginning, here recounted by father to son. Still perhaps Leach senior lies to his son as well, in order to hide his "shameful" conduct and justify his unworthy decorations. I am sure you and Antonio believe this is true, but I do not.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

@ Mr. Raven,

Hello, the problem with W-W decision was that he kept Norfolk out of her effective (old) radar range, thus letting Suffolk alone shadowing BS since the evening of 23. Having 2 ships, IMHO he could have used them much more efficiently, just taking some risks, of course.

Then on 24 night he lost BS having 3 ships available and keeping them all on the eastward..... Not good at all.


@Wadinga

Hi Sean, I know you have a different opinion (and I respect it) despite Sir Henry Leach sentence below his father's photo in Tarrant's book (I'm sorry, don't have his autobiography).

Tarrant_page_61_Leach_photo_caption.jpg (96.79 KiB) Viewed 4324 times

Please don't tell me Tarrant was inventing this sentence attributed to H.Leach (and never disproved)....

From his words, it's 100% clear that H.Leach trusted the Court Martial request, (as I personally do, knowing a bit the RN traditions and expectations.....)

Bye, Alberto

[A Raven]

Mr Virtuani,
I will explain.

Norfolk fitted with type 286 radar, (non rotating aerial).

Fitted ONE WEEK before the Bismarck affair.

NO other radar sets fitted.

This set was not working well.

ALL spare valves had been burned out during trials of the set. ie NO spare valves.

Therefore the set had to be NURSED.

The official report states that the set performed poorly, in fact .... lousy. There is no mention that the set ever picked up Bismarck. I think that I would have remembered if this had been the case and I would have written it into the text of the book; the one that will be given to the publishers next year.

Maximum detection range on a battleship with type 286, is about 16000yards, when working at peak efficiency.

To maintain contact the ship has to be SWUNG when the target moves out of the lobe of the set.

THEREFORE ....... To maintain contact with Bismarck, the Norfolk would have to be LESS than 16000 yards away. This would be a disaster waiting to happen, and in VERY short order.

Suffolk HAS to take and KEEP the lead. It worked well. Tovey's comments after the war bear this out.

It really helps to know the technicalities of the equipment.



T

[dunmunro]

@ Mr. Raven,

Hello, the problem with W-W decision was that he kept Norfolk out of her effective (old) radar range, thus letting Suffolk alone shadowing BS since the evening of 23. Having 2 ships, IMHO he could have used them much more efficiently, just taking some risks, of course.

Then on 24 night he lost BS having 3 ships available and keeping them all on the eastward..... Not good at all.


@Wadinga

Hi Sean, I know you have a different opinion (and I respect it) despite Sir Henry Leach sentence below his father's photo in Tarrant's book (I'm sorry, don't have his autobiography).

Tarrant_page_61_Leach_photo_caption.jpg

Please don't tell me Tarrant was inventing this sentence attributed to H.Leach (and never disproved)....

From his words, it's 100% clear that H.Leach trusted the Court Martial request, (as I personally do, knowing a bit the RN traditions and expectations.....)

Bye, Alberto

Norfolk's surface search range with type 286m radar was about 5-8nm. Shadowing two KM ships, both larger than Norfolk, with modern fire control systems, at such ranges would have been nearly suicidal, as you well know. It seems to me that you feel than Lutjens was somehow cheated of victory and now you want to destroy the the reputations of the RN commanders who defeated Bismarck, as some kind of retribution. W-W did do an "admirable" job in maintaining contact with Bismarck, and your suggestion that he could have shadowed within the surface search range of type 286m borders on the insane.

There is absolutely no indication in either Tarrant, In the Highest Traditions, or in Endure no makeshifts, ( I have all three) that Leach was ever informed of any inquiry or CM pending against him, or that he communicated the same to his son. We know that H. Leach knew about Tovey's claim of a possible inquiry/CM but there's no indication in his book that he knew it from any other source. Tarrant cites correspondence with H. Leach in his sources, but again H.Leach doesn't cite any sources for his knowledge of Tovey's claim so we must infer that Tovey was his source. H.Leach's book was largely written in the period just before the USSR collapsed (he mentions the Soviet rather than Russian navy) although it was first published in 1993 and he was probably writing it just as he and Tarrant were corresponding.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hell0 everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

you wrote :

It seems to me that you feel than Lutjens was somehow cheated of victory and now you want to destroy the reputations of the RN commanders who defeated Bismarck, as some kind of retribution.

Be careful on what you write Duncan because here nobody wants to intentionally destroy the reputation of anybody : period.

We are only putting together pieces of this story that have been ignored, altered, corrected or modified and we are looking for the reason of it to have been done that way.

If you fairly think at what you are doing from your side, ... just the simple fact that we are looking into it is making you all very nervous as everybody can tell since the very beginning of it.

Remember that here there are no invented theories, but the simple analysis of what has been written and done on the Official documents 74 years ago, so the material to be scrutinized has been provided by the authors of the real facts.

In conclusion, the reputation of those Officers at the end will be only based on the knowledge of their real actions by the readers.

But this is valid for everybody in this world, ... we included.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

@ Mr.Raven and Dunmunro,
the comment about the need to shadow froma shorter distance is from Tovey, not from me..... Therefore even in Tovey's mind for the future, more risks should be taken to ensure not to loose the enemy.

@Duncan,
I don't comment on your insinuations, as I have no personal interest in defending one side or the other. You look to have.....
Having been myself an officier, I simply recognize the heroism of Holland, the gentleman behaviour of Dalrymple-Hamilton and the merits of Lutjens in the same identical way. Similarily I see serious deficiencies in Leach, W-W, Ellis and Brinkmann behaviours..... You are the one who only see merit on one side.

Finally, please read carefully the sentence from H.Leach in Tarrant's book and stop speculate about the reasons and excuses...... H.Leach trusted the Court Martial request as per his sentence. Period. I do the same, but if you prefer to think that this never happened for any reason, please continue to think this way.

Tarrant_page_61_Leach_photo_caption.jpg (96.79 KiB) Viewed 4275 times

Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

You have said

Please don't tell me Tarrant was inventing this sentence attributed to H.Leach (and never disproved)....

Well here is the proof. The words in brackets at the end of each photo caption are the owners of the photo. Other photos are attributed to IWM (Imperial War Museum), author's collection or US National Archives amongst others. They didn't write the captions any more than Sir Henry did. The captions are Tarrant's words.

For "Endure No Makeshifts" you can access page 5 the way Antonio has via Google books uk.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Wadinga:
Hi Sean, thanks for the indication re. H.Leach autobiography !

However, are you telling me that seeing these words, attibuted to him, in a quite famous book, regarding his father and being in disagreement, Sir H.Leach never denied to think this way ?

Bye, Alberto

[RF]

Guess why ???

Given that you concede that what you are offering is opinion with respect to a CM I don't find flippant comments like this particulary attractive or appropriate. It makes people like me think that this is really a witch hunt not a genuine discourse.

@ RF,

you wrote :

It is still assumption and conjecture on your part. These details do not constitute any proof of such charges you wish to prefer.

I agree ! It is my personal opinion based on the facts I have shared and the evidence I have provided.

Holding opinion is one thing but the way you are pursuing your case is undermining the credibility and value of the academic research you have done. You have not addressed the possibilities of genuine errors and mistakes in the depositions of the people involved and instead assign an ulterior motive automatically for their actions.

I am aware that the law in Italy is different, being based on Roman Law which assigns strict liability, however in England, where I live, the law holds that a guilty mind has to enact a guilty act, that guilt and not innocence has to be proven. I mention the law in England because Scotland has a different legal system. but even under Scots Law, which is derived from Roman Law, the burden of proof still lies with the prosecution and not the defence. It is your automatic assumption of guilt in all of their actions which I find objectionable. Your opinion is not balanced, and in my view unreasonable.

The reason why the law in Scotland is like it is with respect to burden of proof is that strict liability can be unjust and can cause miscarriages of justice where a completely innocent person can be convicted simply because they cannot offer sufficient proof of their innocence, even though they didn't do the crime..