Cover up synopsis

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

please STOP diverging from this thread subject and stay on the arguments under discussion.

I asked you :

1) is 06.13 a correct declared time for the PoW break off ?
2) did the Y turret jammed before or after the action break off by PoW.

The Royal Navy Admiralty and Capt Leach are on my side with their official declarations I have showed above.

What do you have to sustain anything different and to try to overcome those official declarations ?

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

please STOP diverging from this thread subject and stay on the arguments under discussion.

I asked you :

1) is 06.13 a correct declared time for the PoW break off ?
2) did the Y turret jammed before or after the action break off by PoW.

The Royal Navy Admiralty and Capt Leach are on my side with their official declarations I have showed above.

What do you have to sustain anything different and to try to overcome those official declarations ?

Bye Antonio

Please explain the reason for the shape of PoW's track chart from 0600 to 0606. We're all waiting to hear your explanation.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,


@ Dunmunro,

as you shoud try to accept finally, at 06.03 the Y turret was already firing in local control :

PoW_salvos_local_control_0603_GAR_01.jpg (45.95 KiB) Viewed 1423 times

... AFTER PoW had already started her TURN AWAY according to Capt Leach own report you can read.

PoW_4_June_1941_01.jpg (98.88 KiB) Viewed 1423 times

Anybody should be easily able to realize that consequently the turn away breaking off the action was ordered and started BEFORE this time ( 06.03 ).

Consequently your analysis request of 06.00 until 06.06 is simply useless, ... since the turn away started BEFORE the 06.03.

Is it clear enough for you now ?

Now it is your turn to respond, ... and I wait your answer on my questions about this thread argument, since I asked you :

1) is 06.13 a correct declared time for the PoW break off ?
2) did the Y turret jammed before or after the action break off by PoW.

The Royal Navy Admiralty and Capt Leach are on my side with their official declarations I have showed above.

Based on the above official documents I showed you it should not take much for you to respond me about them.

But in case you want to try to say YES to one of the 2 above questions, then this time you must show me what do you have to sustain anything different and to try to overcome those official declarations.

As simple as that ...

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,


@ Dunmunro,

Please explain the reason for the shape of PoW's track chart from 0600 to 0606. We're all waiting to hear your explanation.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

at 06.03 the PoW had already break off the action, ... we are evaluating when it was ordered and started the turn away Duncan, .... the decision and the order, ... not what PoW did during it, ... but you refuse to read Capt Leach event sequence.

Is it so difficult for you to realize it ? ... apparently yes. Your problem, ... not mine.

In any case the 06.13 is WRONG and FALSE for that ordered action to be started, ... NO matter what, ... and the Admiralty is telling you this, ... but again you preffer to avoid to admit and accept this evident fact.

Unfortunately for you the Admiralty statement is very clear about it ...

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

at 06.03 the PoW had already break off the action, ... we are evaluating when it was ordered and started the turn away Duncan, .... the decision and the order, ... not what PoW did during it, ... but you refuse to read Capt Leach event sequence.

Is it so difficult for you to realize it ? ... apparently yes. Your problem, ... not mine.

In any case the 06.13 is WRONG and FALSE for that ordered action to be started, ... NO matter what, ... and the Admiralty is telling you this, ... but again you preffer to avoid to admit and accept this evident fact.

Bye Antonio

Please explain the reason for the shape of PoW's track chart from 0600 to 0606. We're all waiting to hear your explanation.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

a warship retrerating from an action trying to hide herself behind a smoke screen already well started.

Now, if you do not respond to my 2 questions to you, ... you can just avoid to ask me anything anymore on this forum because I had enough of poorly educated persons not even respecting the basic forum rules.

Enough is enough ...

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dunmunro wrote: "Please explain the reason for the shape of PoW's track chart from 0600 to 0606. We're all waiting to hear your explanation."

Hi Duncan,
I see you don't remember what we have discussed several times already, and after some time you are back with your own personal and unsupported theory about Leach intention to immediately re-engage (never mentioned by Leach himself....).


I will be (for the last time, hopefully) more tolerant than Antonio and I will tell you again my explanation: we will never know the exact reason but logically the shape of the course is an "S" because, in the hurry to run away opening range as quickly as possible, PoW went above the optimum course required to stay behind her own smoke screen (due to the wind coming from North-East).
Thus Leach was compelled to turn a bit to starboard to sail under the smoke screen until when at 6:05:30 he realized that he could safely resume the best course to enlarge range, as Bismarck fire was not dangerous anymore (due to the turns of the German ships).
I know this cannot be 100% proved in any way, but it's always a better explanation than to invent something that Leach himself never mentioned (when it was such an important "circumstance").
It's simply impossible he "forgot" to mention his intentions to re-engage in all his reports.


Now I hope we be back to the discussion about point 19 incorrectly written by Tovey and be back on the topic of this thread.....


Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi all,
@Antonio Bonomi: I beg your pardon, I posted my above explanation before I realized that you had already gave a (very similar ) answer to Duncan.....

Bye; Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

not a problem Alberto, since that point was largely discussed long time ago.

As I tried to explain to Dunmunro, here we are talking about an event that :

1) had a starting time, the order from Capt Leach -- > STARTING POINT OF THE TURN AWAY ( BREAK OFF THE ACTION )

2) Had an elapsed time to be executed of some minutes --> DURING THE TURN AWAY

3) Had an end of it --- > AFTER THE TURN AWAY

We are evaluating the STARTING POINT of it (1) , ... the order moment, ... and NOT the process (2) or the result after the end of it (3).

If somebody wants to try to state that 06.13 is correct for the STARTING POINT (1) of it likeAdm Tovey wrote on his point 19, must provide the evidence of it since the Admiralty declared it INCORRECT and moved it back to 06.03.

The Admiralty did that because at 06.03 and 10 seconds, as they correctly evaluated, the Y turret was firing in local control DURING (2) the turn away that obviously had already started BEFORE, as everybody should be able to realize easily.

The Y turret jammed DURING (2) the turn away because of the turn itself, so it is impossible that it was jammed before the turn was ordered and started , and this is simple and irrefutable, ... obvioulsy.

I knowwell that the turn away in reality was probably ordered and started even BEFORE 06.03,.. but for this thread purpose it is NOT important to discuss it here now, we already did it and w eknow the correct answer already.

What is important here now, is that everybody realize that 06.13 in WRONG, FALSE and intentionally incorrectly written on the AdmTovey dispatches at point 19, .... and similarly it si WRONG and FALSE that the Y turret jammed before that order was issued by Capt Leach, like Adm Tovey wrote too, ... because it is impossible.

This is where we stand now, ... this is what needs to be responded to.

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

a warship retrerating from an action trying to hide herself behind a smoke screen already well started.

Now, if you do not respond to my 2 questions to you, ... you can just avoid to ask me anything anymore on this forum because I had enough of poorly educated persons not even respecting the basic forum rules.

Enough is enough ...

Bye Antonio

Where does Leach state that he altered course to facilitate the smoke screen? Where does Leach state a specific time as to when he made his decision? We can imply as to when the inital turnaway occurred but we cannot know for certain as to when the decision was made not to reengage as we cannot ask Leach. We know that the turn to ~0215d slowed PoW greatly and it dangerously exposed PoW to further fire and that she was plainly visible to PE and Bismarck after the turn to ~0215. A steady retreat along a course of 140d - 160d would have been much less hazardous and would have opened the range much quicker, and not bled off nearly so much speed.

1) is 06.13 a correct declared time for the PoW break off ?
2) did the Y turret jammed before or after the action break off by PoW.

1) I've already stated that 0613 was probably a typo or that Tovey derived that time from the 3 war diaries. Without a further explanation from Tovey, it's hard to say more than that. We know that their Lordships had access to all the enclosures to his despatch and possibly came to the same conclusion and ignored it as an error. It's been pointed out that W-W, via Tovey's despatch, implied that the turn away occurred at ~0603.
2) We know that Y turret jammed after PoW turned to ~140d, but we cannot know if Leach would have turned and engaged again if the turret hadn't jammed, since a course of 220d, which PoW did turn to, at great risk, before turning away would have opened his A arcs for the engagement to continue; Leach may have felt that this was obvious and required no elaboration.

[dunmunro]

...I will tell you again my explanation: we will never know the exact reason but logically the shape of the course is an "S" because, in the hurry to run away opening range as quickly as possible, PoW went above the optimum course required to stay behind her own smoke screen (due to the wind coming from North-East).Thus Leach was compelled to turn a bit to starboard to sail under the smoke screen until when at 6:05:30 he realized that he could safely resume the best course to enlarge range, as Bismarck fire was not dangerous anymore (due to the turns of the German ships).
I know this cannot be 100% proved in any way, but it's always a better explanation than to invent something that Leach himself never mentioned (when it was such an important "circumstance").

PoW turned nearly 80 degs from her initial course of ~140; that's more than a "bit". It doesn't make sense as a manoeuvre designed to hide PoW behind a smoke screen.

According to Brooks, PoW was narrowly missed by a 15in salvo just at ~0605 and this salvo was also witnessed by an aircraft.

Someone ordered these manoeuvres and it was likely Leach, and they, IMHO, reveal the timing of his decision making process.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dunmunro wrote: "Someone ordered these manoeuvres and it was likely Leach, and they, IMHO, reveal the timing of his decision making process."

Hi Duncan,
of course someone ordered the maneuvers (I would not be sure who did), but it's 100% sure it was not an attempt to re-engage as in his careful explanation of the difficult decision to break off action, Capt.Leach did not mention this attempt that would have been the key point in his defense in any report.....

Please, if you can find a single evidence in an official document supporting your personal theory, you are more than welcome to share it, else this re-engagement attempt is just pure speculation.

I have told you that I cannot prove my explanation re. the smoke screen, but this one is a possible one (any turn, even more than 80° can be useful to hide a ship behind a screen moved away by the wind and the direction of the wind supports this) , another explanation is that the "zig-zag" course was just an attempt to avoid German shells still falling too close (this matches with your point 2 above). Both are possible, your theory is simply not, because Capt.Leach is clearly (and carefully....) explaining why and when he decided to turn away and he never mentioned the re-engagement attempt.


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

I have asked you :

1) is 06.13 a correct declared time for the PoW break off ?

and you responded :

1) I've already stated that 0613 was probably a typo or that Tovey derived that time from the 3 war diaries. Without a further explanation from Tovey, it's hard to say more than that. We know that their Lordships had access to all the enclosures to his despatch and possibly came to the same conclusion and ignored it as an error. It's been pointed out that W-W, via Tovey's despatch, implied that the turn away occurred at ~0603.

The important fact is that it is surely incorrect no matter what, as the Admiralty stated on 1948.
I do not think it was a typo, based on the fact that it was RearAdm Wake-Walker the one which started with that timing on his own report and Adm Tovey in my opinion just took it from there.

2) did the Y turret jammed before or after the action break off by PoW.

and you responded :

2) We know that Y turret jammed after PoW turned to ~140d, but we cannot know if Leach would have turned and engaged again if the turret hadn't jammed, since a course of 220d, which PoW did turn to, at great risk, before turning away would have opened his A arcs for the engagement to continue; Leach may have felt that this was obvious and required no elaboration.

It is a fact that Y turret jammed after the PoW turn away started.
Of course it was impossible even to think that a turret jamming as a consequence of a turn ordered and started, while the turn was already in progress, ... was jammed before the turn itself was ordered and started. This is easy and irrefutable.

That is ALL I wanted to know from your side, and I am glad you agree with me and in fairness admitted what it is so evident and obvious that cannot be refused by any person with a minimun knowledge of what we are talking about here in this forum about this battle event.

I thank your fairmess and by reading your answers I assume that you are in agreement with me on the evaluation of point 19 written by Adm Tovey on his dispatches being incorrect and misleading due to the above reasons.


@ All,

is there anybody else here on this forum with a different opinion ?

In this case please share with us your opinion and the evidence supporting it.


Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hi All

May I ask a few questions? My previous post had a few in that were not really answered but I hope I may be allowed to ask a couple more.

Do we accept that Tovey's report on the 30th is correct?

Do we accept that we cannot know and therefore cannot limit what exactly their Lordships had at their disposal to make their judgement?

Thank you
Best wishes
Cag.