Cover up synopsis

[dunmunro]

Antonio, maybe you can explain what "...burnt camouflage..." refers to along with "Further scrutiny? May disclose some inaccuracies"

Which "valve" was opened?

Sounds like a corrupted message to me.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Steve Crandell wrote: "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"."

Hi Steve,
the guns in action were 9, not 5, when he decided to retreat (all turrets were bearing), but even accepting your explanation, then at least an inquiry for negligence was absolutely due.....

Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Steve Crandell wrote: "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"."

Hi Steve,
the guns in action were 9, not 5, when he decided to retreat, but even accepting your explanation, then at least an inquiry for negligence was absolutely due.....

Bye, Alberto

Prior to salvo nine, 5 guns were in action as "Y turret would not bear". How does a corrupted radio message equal an "inquiry for negligence"?

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Duncan,
Leach had in front of him the 2 fore turrets with 5 guns in action before salvo 9, however after three days he wrote 3...... not a great demonstration of competence, if according to Steve he had to wait "someone" in the wardroom to tell him they were 5......

Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Hi Duncan,
he had in front of him the 2 fore turrets with 5 guns in action before salvo 9 and after 3 days he wrote 3...... not a great demonstration of competence, if according to Steve he had to wait "someone" in the wardroom to tell him they were 5......

Bye, Alberto

Alberto, what about the "burnt camouflage" and which "valve" was opened? What does "Further scrutiny? May disclose some inaccuracies" mean?

It's hard to believe that a naval officer can actually state that a corrupted radio message is grounds for an inquiry!

[Steve Crandell]

Hi Duncan,
Leach had in front of him the 2 fore turrets with 5 guns in action before salvo 9, however after three days he wrote 3...... not a great demonstration of competence, if according to Steve he had to wait "someone" in the wardroom to tell him they were 5......

Bye, Alberto

Considering what happened to him, I'm a bit surprised he had any memory of the battle at all.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

as far as I can read and understand, Capt Leach was always referring to " guns in action " one every statement he made.
YES, I do agree with your analysis about "salvos" versus " in action ", but that is not what Capt Leach referred to.

@ Steve Crandell,

surely it was not Capt Leach to decide and organize the cover up. He was only trying to justify his decision to retreat from the battle with the limited number of guns in action on that moment.

Others, ... not him, ... created and used an incorrect timing ( 06:13 versus 06:03 ) to cover up the events and inserted on that timeframe everything possible to justify his decisions, ... like the main guns " Teething troubles", the damages, the Y turret already jammed ( and this directly refers to the May 24 message on Wellings book ... ... ) ... etc etc ... reference Adm tovey dispatches at point 19.

Read yourself :

19. The Prince of Wales started off well for so new and unpractised a ship and had straddled with her sixth salvo. She had been engaging the Bismarck, while herself being engaged by the Prinz Eugen. After emptying her aircraft in preparation for a night encounter, she had been unable to refuel it in time to fly off before contact was made. It was just about to be catapulted when it was hit by splinters and had to be jettisoned. As soon as the Hood had been disposed of, the Bismarck shifted her main and secondary armament fire quickly and accurately on to the Prince of Wales. The range was now about 18,000 yards and the Prince of Wales' starboard 5.25 inch battery had also come into action. Within a very few minutes she was hit by four 15-in, and three smaller, probably 8-in. shells; her compass platform was damaged and most of the people on it killed or wounded; both forward H.A. Directors and the starboard after one were out of action; one four-gunned turret had jammed and the ship was holed underwater aft. The Rear-Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron, reports that the Prince of Wales' salvoes were now falling short and had a very large spread. The Commanding Officer considered it expedient temporarily to break off the action and, at 0613, turned away under smoke. The range on ceasing fire was 14,600 yards.

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 9tovey.htm

@ Dunmunro,

unfortunately I cannoty help you on realizing why that message does have some transmission errors.

What I can see, is that all the numbers in there do make sense and there are many 3's and 5's all over the message correctly transmitted, ... so no doubts about the number and statement Capt Leach transmitted : 3 main guns in action on that moment.

In the Admiralty anyhow they knew since 07:25 that he had A+B in action and 2 guns of Y in action from CS1 ( Wake-Walker ), and at 10:07 they realized directly from Capt Leach that he had 9 guns in action on that moment, ... back on the same number he had in action when he decided to retreat at 06:01/02, .... before his turn away disengaging jammed the Y turret ring.

But this is not what Adm Tovey declared, ... just read above his point 19.

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Antonio, there was only one radio message and it was sent on 27 May (transmission completed at 10:29)when PoW was in the far north where radio transmission was always problematic. The message was sent in reply an to Admiralty inquiry sent on 25 May at 23:17. When PoW returned to the UK the Admiralty was provided with the corrected information. There's no mystery here and there's nothing here to support a cover-up.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

I see what you mean and I take this option in serious consideration, ... even if at this point I am not going to dismiss Wellings input, ... I want the PoW and Rodney radio logs ...

But again, ... this is a minor point ,... because Capt Leach did just what was obvious after the events he was involved, ... he provided some justifications, ... changing some declarations while doing it.

I think you will agree with me about the fact that his explanations ... in any case, ... do NOT correspond with the point 19 on Admiral Tovey dispatches, ... and that document was the finalization of the " cover up " occurred.

That document closed any action by the Admiralty and enabled the recognitions of October 1941, ... for him and for RearAdm Wake-Walker, ... even before his change of declarations on the Hood second board ...

Simple and irrefutable ... under the eyes of everybody, ... it is enough to read and compare.

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All,
Yoy may well be correct Antonio regarding Leach's intended meaning, but re reading the message "at sixth salvo" there would have been 3 guns in action as the sixth salvo consited of three guns A2, A4, B2 and Y turret wooded. At the time of battle the number of guns available to be in action to PoW was 5 A2, A3, A4, B1 and B2 as Y turret was wooded. Either way you look at it both messages are accurate and another simple interpretation it could be said that one is a clarification of the other.

I'm sorry to be seemingly again taking an opposing view, but I cannot see how this helps the case for a cover up. It is frustrating to me as if definative proof was presented I would read and most probably agree, but we have differing messages and personal interpretations of those messages being promoted as proof of a cover up.

This is again an opinion and not proof, I fully accept that opinion, but it is not proof. Maybe if I explain what I mean.

We have had accepted evidence from Captain Ellis that stated Norfolk and Suffolk were to 'follow and flank mark', and that any firing by the cruisers would have affected the spotting for Hood and PoW. If this is accepted then surely there is no requirement for a cover up as to why Norfolk and Suffolk did not participate in the battle, they did not consider it was their role.

We have evidence that Y turret on PoW was out of action until 0825 IIRC, and anecdotal evidence that Wake-Walker and Leach were to face Courts Martial for not re engaging Bismarck immediately after the loss of Hood. If Y turret was out of action until 0825 how could PoW have engaged both Bismarck and Prinz Eugen after the loss with only two turrets and 5 guns? Why would there be a need for a cover up of factual evidence?

All of this is only my opinion, I'm not calling it proof of the non existance of a cover up, I'm offering it as an explanation of the available information in my opinion. This can be disputed and I accept that that is why I cannot call it definative proof.

As always with respect
Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

I see your points, ... but please, take a couple of minutes and read my post to Duncan ( Dunmunro ) here above.

The " cover up " is not associated to Capt Leach message content ( May 24th, 27th or 4th of June ) it is the way Adm Tovey " altered/ modified " those declarations ... changing the timing and the data of the events of PoW disengagement ... and inventing the 06:13 retreat time.

This absolutely incorrect statement proliferate on books for 75 years, ... and it is still printed on books today by Dartmouth history professors ( "... HMS Prince of Wales fighting on alone for 13 minutes, ... " G.H. Bennet PhD - Hunting Tirpitz at page 8 - Plymouth 2012 with foreword of Sir Mark Stanhope GCB OBE ADC RN First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff ... ... ) ... despite the Admiralty 1948 correction back to 06:03 retreat time on the Battle Summary Number 5.

I am sure some " peer reviewers " will take a good care of this evident error ...

You wrote :

We have had accepted evidence from Captain Ellis that stated Norfolk and Suffolk were to 'follow and flank mark', and that any firing by the cruisers would have affected the spotting for Hood and PoW. If this is accepted then surely there is no requirement for a cover up as to why Norfolk and Suffolk did not participate in the battle, they did not consider it was their role.

And here as well as above this is not what Admiral Tovey declared on his dispatches at point 17 :

17. It was the intention of the Vice-Admiral Commanding, Battle Cruiser Squadron, that the Hood and Prince of Wales should engage the Bismarck, leaving the Prinz Eugen to the cruisers, but the Rear-Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron, was not aware that the battlecruiser force was so near; the Norfolk and Suffolk, therefore, shadowing from the eastward and northward respectively at a range of about 15 miles, were not in a position to engage the Prinz Eugen who was now stationed ahead of the Bismarck on a course of 240°.

As you can read Adm Tovey declared something different in this case as well, ... " covering up " ... also Wake-Walker and Ellis.

Capt Ellis memories ( 9 sea miles ) as well as the first board declaration of 20.000 yards by Wake-Walker becoming 30.000 yards on August 1941 are not the " cover up ", ... those are just the evidence that the reality was different than declared by Adm Tovey dispatches, ... like for Capt Leach above.

Hope it is clear now how the " cover up " has been done ... and by whom ... in order to satisfy Their Lordship requests, ... do not proceed with any further scrutiny ( inquiry ) ... and enable the recognitions on October 1941.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

All,

Now the northern hemisphere Solstice has long passed and evenings are drawing in, one’s enthusiasm for posted combat is recharged and it is time to re-engage. Sadly the factual(ish) threads have been neglected recently in favour of the even more hypothetical.

Some are fun, e.g. would the Starship KM Enterprise be able to blow the Perfidious Brits to even smaller bits, if it teleported back to 1941 and put 23rdC technology at the disposal of the Nazi regime but some are just tedious reruns of Top Trumps arguments about Bismarck’s top speed, already exhaustively explored hereabouts.

I have reactivated Cover Up but mirages as a lie/construct have been mentioned in many threads..

Alberto has said, in stolid support of Antonio’s assertions:

Hi Duncan,
British cruisers stated they were affected by the refraction effect. Germans did not tell any "story" about refraction or "mirage". You have to show me where they did, not the other way round.....

and elsewhere:

If you prefer to believe to the funny story of the "mirage" (that never affected Germans....),

and elsewhere:

"Mirage" not mentioned at all (I always said that this was an excuse

)

and otherwise Antonio has said:

Did anybody invite him to the Second Board on Inquiry to double check some " mirage " and " Fata Morgana " effects that apparently had surfaced in the memories of ONE ( only one, and guess WHO ) of the previous board of Inquiry interrogation

From Ersten Gefecht

“[page 116 start]

There, behind the field rise cloud-like, but motionless, silently and deathly far, the high, snow-covered mountains. The mountains of Greenland are brought magically much closer by a kind of MIRAGE despite the great distance. They are more than 3000 meters high, as the chart shows, which I was able to take a peek at during the last watch. We are still very far off the terra firma of Greenland, but the mountains are visible and imposing, with their gentle contours, with snow and ice on their summits: an alpine landscape in the far North.”

So the argument that “mirages” were lies only invented by the British to cover up previous lies and inconsistencies fails utterly because here the Germans describe a mirage in the cold Arctic air making things that were a very, very long way away appear much, much closer that very same morning.

Another flimsy buttress falls………………..

All the best

wadinga

[alecsandros]

... I don't see how that changes Tovey's erroneous "6:13" timing, or Norfolk's non-intervention at a critical time in the battle.

[Herr Nilsson]

... I don't see how that changes Tovey's erroneous "6:13" timing, or Norfolk's non-intervention at a critical time in the battle.

I'll quote myself:

6:13 as PoW retreat time is totally "wrong".

I knew you would write exactly that sentence. That is and was one of the standard fallback positions in almost every discussion we had over the last years. It was used as knock-out argument everytime Antonio's reconstruction was seriously challenged and I'm tired of reading it, because it nips any fruitful discussion in the bud. To use it is dogmatism and certainly not finding the "truth".

[alecsandros]

@Marc
What is your opinion (if it can be presented here) of Tovey's timing, in corelation with Prince of Wales's withdrawal, Leach's comments and Norfolk's re-positioning on the map during the second board of enquiry ?