Cover up synopsis

[Cag]

Hi All,
Very true Alberto but if one tries to find a lot the signal logs, destroyer ships logs, camouflage section scheme designs, or even camouflage colours, and a lot of other important historical information you will find it almost impossible as in the 1950's-60's the Admiralty threw them out! (Unlike the US which decided to save things for future generations)

The 0800 message for me is still an unresolved issue as it seems like an amalgamation of a number of signals and is missing from the War Diary reports whereas the signal from HMS Electra, which I would have imagined to be the true source of any such survivor signal, is present.

I understand that the lack of these is open to question but once again the simple fact that they are missing does not conclusively prove a cover up and can't really be used as a "They are missing therefore it can only mean one thing that it is a cover up" as there are other quite simple explanations. There are a lot of documents still available MFQ maps and such like and yet some of these are missing as unfortunately the archives were given what was left after the clear outs not neccessarily cover ups.

I'm sure Mr Raven can tell you of the loss of vital information that was destroyed which would make life much easier now but thankfully some was saved and it is a slight stretch of the imagination to consider that all of those that are missing is due in one way or another to a cover up of something.

A wise man once said that a thought is not a fact, I may think that the missing items prove sinister motives but unless I can conclusively prove it I'm affraid it's still only a thought or an opinion to which we are all entitled.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Mr.Cag,
we can of course have different perceptions of what many clues mean...... especially when they are all in one direction to support am incorrect "official version"......

Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hi Cag

You say

The 0800 message for me is still an unresolved issue as it seems like an amalgamation of a number of signals and is missing from the War Diary reports whereas the signal from HMS Electra, which I would have imagined to be the true source of any such survivor signal, is present.

It doesn't read to me like a radio message at all, more like a draft for Leach's narrative incorporated much later, and is not present in the list of B-Dienst intercepted signals either. Is it the only source of the famous lie/invention/exaggeration by Captain Leach saying he only had 3 14" guns in action? The actual radioed reports from CS1 do not say "only 3 guns in action" but say only that 2 guns in Y turret are out of action. Maybe Joseph Wellings couldn't read his own writing when he was substituting US nomenclenture like DD and BB for english.

All the best

wadinga

[Cag]

Hi All,
Of course Alberto no problem, and we can all have differing opinions as to what are 'clues' and what are 'errors' and what are pieces of conclusively evidential fact.

A sequence can be found in most things, however this does not neccessarily mean finding a sequence means anything untoward happened or if one is found this automatically in itself proves existance of something untoward having actually happened and that is why most 'conspiracy' type theories have supporters and denigrators and the debate goes on and on and on.

Most, like myself, sit happily on the fence awaiting the production of proof, not circumstantial pieces of evidence that could or could not mean that something may or may not have happened and that it just so happens may also have another perfectly reasonable explanation and all of a sudden we're back to opinion and not fact.

I am quite happy to debate opinions and accept that anyone's opinion may alter my own, that is life, for me it's just hard to see that in documents, that on both sides contain errors, revisions due to new evidence, and faulty eye witness statements it's due to a convoluted inept cover up rather than the most simplest explanation.

Best wishes,
Cag.

[Cag]

Hi All,
Sorry Wadinga missed your post, obviously the message can't be dismissed but it just seems odd that there is no record of the signal from Electra, which is the only place that any details of survivors could come from, and yet there is a message from PoW giving full details from which there is apparently no source?

The survivors AFAIK were picked up local time after 0800, the War Diary message from Electra is timed 0906. this makes sense, a message at 0800 from PoW giving details that was unknown until 0906 does not at the moment (Unless it was a visual signal which in that case means that the crew of PoW ate a great deal of carrots!).

Best wishes,
Cag.

[wadinga]

Au Contraire my dear Cag,

Duncan's gift incudes 09:06B from Electra giving the details, but corrupt group for Tilburn's rank, so Wellings did not get these details by intercepting this transmission, but at some much later time, from another source, as you suspected.

The source of the "3 guns only" story is unreliable.

All the best
wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

you wrote :

... obviously the message can't be dismissed but it just seems odd that there is no record of the signal from Electra, which is the only place that any details of survivors could come from, and yet there is a message from PoW giving full details from which there is apparently no source?

You are right, ... that message cannot be dismissed, ... just like everything else occurred.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

Can you please clarify:

You are right, ... that message cannot be dismissed,

Is the only source of the "3 guns only" message you have so often quoted over the last few years, the Wellings book?

Why cannot the Wellings' book message be dismissed? There is no corroberation of its existence, even from German interception records. It has no actual Time Of Origin. It describes irrelevent details about survivors, that nobody can possibly know about in PoW at 08:00, and it is wordy and grammatical in a way that no tersely worded naval message is. It refers in the third person to "the Captain" being unhurt, and a couple of sentences later says "I decided to break off action......."

This is something Wellings has cobbled together from heresay, weeks maybe months later. It is completely unreliable and to fixate on whether it says PoW opened fire at 23,000yds or whatever, completely misses the point. Leach never claimed he only had 3 guns in action, his actual corroberated reports confirm what we know to be true, A and B turrets operational and Y turret later after the shell ring is fixed. Maybe somebody told him 23,000 yds in the Pub....

Cag you are a model of diplomacy.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "Maybe somebody told him 23,000 yds in the Pub...."

Hi Sean,
yes maybe, and maybe he decided to include a Pub chat in his book dating it and inserting it on May 24 witin a correct sequence of other messages........
Possibly 3 was just a "sacred" number he liked so much....... and 23000 was just his fantasy.....

Ah, no, 23000 is in an official message on May 25.

Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

No Sean, it is not the only source of the " 3 guns " statement ... so do not write that : " Leach never claimed he only had 3 guns in action, ... " because it is an incorrect statement from your side ... once again ...

PoW_May_27_05_1941.jpg (49.13 KiB) Viewed 1123 times

It is contained also on the May 27th statement, ... as you can read above, ... but on a different phrase sequence position, ... just like the Y turret one ... and the change of the distances from 23.000 to 25.000 yards ...

The key difference between May 24 and May 27 messages, ..is where the statements have been placed ... changing the whole meaning of the communication of course, ... in a better way.

Unfortunately we can see Capt Leach doing the same thing between May 27th ... and June 4th, ... which confirms his attitude on changing his previous released declarations. What do you think about it ?

Please read and compare the 2 messages and their meaning before even thinking to dismiss a message from HMS Rodney and an US Naval Attache on board her.

PoW_msg_0800_may_24_1941.JPG (69.68 KiB) Viewed 1123 times

PoW_May_27.jpg (79.8 KiB) Viewed 1123 times

To try to dismiss this, ... you/we need to find the HMS PoW radio log or the HMS Rodney radio log ... at least ...

Bye Antonio

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

in order to confirm what I have stated above, here May 27th versus June 4th comparions

Now you can provide us your opinion about this evident attitude on keep on changing the data on the communications.

PoW_May_27.jpg (79.8 KiB) Viewed 1122 times

PoW_June_4.jpg (101.9 KiB) Viewed 1122 times

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Prince of Wales did not send a detailed account of the action until May 27. Sean and Cag are correct in stating that Wellings must have compiled the message in his book from later messages, especially the message sent by PoW to the Admiralty on May 27.

The message sent by PoW was obviously corrupted in transmission as the phrase "...opened a valve..." shows rather convincingly. The June 4 "message" is simply PoW providing the correct text to the Admiralty.



There is simply no other references to a radio message from PoW that could have contained similar text, prior to May 27.

I have repeatedly warned that radio transmissions were frequently corrupted and/or mis-transmitted, mis-received and/or misinterpreted.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

I find very hard to believe that Wellings took the freedom to " create " a message from several other radio messages transmitted after and print it on his book aside May 24th, 1941 at around 08.00 in the morning ...

I find more logic that a message with a brief description of the action and mostly an overall status of the newest RN battleship you have disengaged from an action on going to be provided to your superiors ( Admiralty ) as soon as possible, just to enable them to have a complete scenario of the situation. From a pure military stand point it makes more common sense.

But in this regard we have the CS1 ( RearAdm Wake-Walker at 07:25 ) :

CS1_0725.jpg (49.95 KiB) Viewed 1076 times

and PoW ( Capt Leach at 10:07 ) :

PoW_1007.jpg (57.3 KiB) Viewed 1076 times

radio messages received by Home Fleet and Admiralty that morning ( May 24th, 1941 ) and are clear enough.

I have learned doing those researches to never say never ... and as I wrote above only the HMS PoW and HMS Rodney radio logs can provide us a better way to realize what really have been transmitted ( even if not received ) and when.

In any case Capt Leach wrote "... 3 main 14inch guns in action ... " on May 27th, 1941 ... that became " ... 5 main 14 inch guns in action ... " on June 4th, 1941.

We have the original of those documents and nothing can put those statements in dispute, ... and writing that incorrect statement 3 days after the action ... is even worst than writing it few hours after the battle when maybe you have limited access to the whole data.

In any case it does provide us his real perception ( and what he wanted to communicate to his superiors ) of having had in that precise moment few ( only 3 ) main guns in action ... while the reality was different, because only A1 was out of action, so 5 was the right number for A+B turrets on that moment immediately before Y turret with her 4 guns was able to bear, ... just as reported by Colin McMullen and the PoW GAR.

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All,
May i point out something that may solve this issue. When PoW opened fire as mentioned in 0957/27 and including the sixth salvo the ship did have only 3 guns per salvo in action as Y turret was wooded (Sometimes only 2). As far as I can tell the 5 guns is also correct as with the loss of A1 gun and Y turret wooded only 5 guns were operational (3 in A turret, 2 in B turret =5 )
Hope this helps
Best wishes
Cag.

[Steve Crandell]

Simple explanation. One day Leach thought there were 3 guns in action. Several days later he was talking to someone in the wardroom about writing their official summary and casually mentioned that there were only 3 guns in action and that someone said "No, we actually had 5 in action then". So he corrects it. Simple. No conspiracy needed.