Cover up synopsis

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:49 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: You are, flat out, stating that Ellis submitted a false report, as you claim that Suffolk never turned away. Submitting false reports is a crime!
Hi Duncan,
Yes, I am. However, duringa war, for a good cause, you can be required to sign a false report, if this can help your country to win a war. As you see, I can "interpret" the Articles of War......
Ellis apparently accepted such a request, Phillips probably not.....

Bye, Alberto
Maybe in the Italian navy that's true, but it is not true of the Royal Navy:
The Naval Discipline Act, 1866


An Act to make Provision for the Discipline of the Navy. [10th August 1866.]
WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the Government of the Navy, whereon, under the good Providence of God, the Wealth, Safety, and Strength of the Kingdom chiefly depend:

Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, as follows:

PART I.

ARTICLES or WAR...

35. Every Person subject to this Act who shall knowingly make or sign a false Muster or Record or other official Document, or who shall command, counsel, or procure the making or signing thereof, or who shall aid or abet any other Person in the making or signing thereof, shall be dismissed from Her Majesty's Service, with Disgrace, or suffer such other Punishment as is herein-after mentioned.
A false report is a serious crime in the RN.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:58 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "However, they did open fire, and they did so because they believed that they had a reasonable hit probability."
Hi Duncan,
BS needed to engage PoW in some way not leaving her undisturbed. That's why Lutjens ordered PG to shift fire to PoW and fired his own secondary armament.
I think he had already enough enemies around to provoke with the 5,9" an 8" cruiser that was apparently NOT intentioned to open fire.

Bye, Alberto
Bismarck continued firing her 5.9in guns at PoW and even opened up with her 4.1in guns.

Suffolk was not at 18k yds from Bismarck during the battle.

It would have been a violation of the articles of war for Suffolk not to engage the enemy, just as it would have been contrary to German naval regulation for Bismarck not to engage the enemy:
I think he had already enough enemies around to provoke with the 5,9" an 8" cruiser that was apparently NOT intentioned to open fire.
Not engaging the enemy was punishable by death in both the RN and KM. Good god, what do did they teach you in the Italian Navy?

Sir Walter Scott:
O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!
Now you have the Baron, Lindemann and Lutjens caught up in your conspiracy!

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Sep 20, 2015 1:17 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

Duncan, I suggest you that before you continue to expose yourself with those statements ... to go and read my last post on " The Plot " thread.

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:56 pm

Dunmunro wrote: "Not engaging the enemy was punishable by death in both the RN and KM.....it would have been contrary to German naval regulation for Bismarck not to engage the enemy: "
Hi Duncan,
now it's you that want to use the Articles of War in their literal sense......I was thinking it was me using them blindly..... :wink:

Of course, for good reasons, you can not engage the enemy, e.g. when you are in clear inferiority or when you have received an order not to do so. Examples : at the age of sails, a frigate was not obliged by the Articles to engage a ship of the line. During WWII HMS Devonshire, when Glorious was sunk, violated the Articles......There was a very good reason not to engage.
Lutjens had clear orders to attack merchant ships and convoys, avoiding to provoke an enemy that was NOT intentioned to attack him and that could damage his ship.
Dunmunro wrote: "A false report is a serious crime in the RN."
Sure, but less serious than the ones listed in Article 2 (you have noticed that in the article 35 the death sentence is NOT foreseen.....), but for good reasons you can falsify a report as well as you can not engage an enemy, of course. If the very survival of your country depends of this, you can do it. I prefer to think that they acted for their country and not only to save their neck....... :think:


Last but not least: please avoid these personal attacks that I have never used against you:
you wrote: "...what do did they teach you in the Italian Navy?... "
"....Maybe in the Italian navy that's true.....,"
Please, leave my Country and my Navy out of this discussion that concern some Royal Navy officers only, even if you seem to be clearly
distraught by the shock of Ellis account...... (BTW Ellis explains why he did not engage BS, from his viewpoint). :kaput:


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:04 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "Not engaging the enemy was punishable by death in both the RN and KM.....it would have been contrary to German naval regulation for Bismarck not to engage the enemy: "
Hi Duncan,
now it's you that want to use the Articles of War in their literal sense......I was thinking it was me using them blindly..... :wink:

Of course, for good reasons, you can not engage the enemy, e.g. when you are in clear inferiority or when you have received an order not to do so. Examples : at the age of sails, a frigate was not obliged by the Articles to engage a ship of the line. During WWII HMS Devonshire, when Glorious was sunk, violated the Articles......There was a very good reason not to engage.
Lutjens had clear orders to attack merchant ships and convoys, avoiding to provoke an enemy that was NOT intentioned to attack him and that could damage his ship.
Dunmunro wrote: "A false report is a serious crime in the RN."
Sure, but less serious than the ones listed in Article 2 (you have noticed that in the article 35 the death sentence is NOT foreseen.....), but for good reasons you can falsify a report as well as you can not engage an enemy, of course. If the very survival of your country depends of this, you can do it. I prefer to think that they acted for their country and not only to save their neck....... :think:


Last but not least: please avoid these personal attacks that I have never used against you:
you wrote: "...what do did they teach you in the Italian Navy?... "
"....Maybe in the Italian navy that's true.....,"
Please, leave my Country and my Navy out of this discussion that concern some Royal Navy officers only, even if you seem to be clearly
distraught by the shock of Ellis account...... (BTW Ellis explains why he did not engage BS, from his viewpoint). :kaput:


Bye, Alberto
The written reports from Ellis, Phillips and Wake-Walker all state that neither cruiser was in effective gun range. The actions of Bismarck and PE indicate that neither cruiser was in effective gun range. You would have us believe that Suffolk was only 18k yds from Bismarck from 0541, and actually closing the range from that distance for 12 minutes before Hood opened fire, yet no one on Bismarck, including the Baron, was concerned... :stubborn:

We have Ellis clearly stating that Suffolk did a 360d turn just at 0541, to open the range, and this combined with the claimed range from PE at 0541 decisively proves that Suffolk was at least 30k yds away at 0553.

I am in shock that that you can actually believe what you are writing.

You seem offended when I ask about the Italian navy, and whether you were taught to falsify reports, but you seem to think that it doesn't cause any offence when you flat out state that a number of RN officers did that and then lied under oath about it during the Hood inquiries. Your claims that it was done in the national interest are so incredibly biased and improbable as to defy belief. I have stated time and time again that reports are classified and will never be revealed in wartime.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:19 pm

@Dunmunro,
you wrote: " You would have us believe that Suffolk was only 18k yds from Bismarck from 0541......."
Hi Duncan, it's not me saying that. It's Capt. Ellis saying that he was at around 18000 yards from enemy at 5:53.

If you want to believe that he was affected by "dementia" (as the poor Adm Tovey when recalling the Court Martial requested by Churchilll) , please feel free to do so. Having read his account, I don't.

you wrote: "You seem offended when I ask about the Italian navy, and whether you were taught to falsify reports, but you seem to think that it doesn't cause any offence when you flat out state that a number of RN officers did that and then lied under oath about it during the Hood inquiries."
Yes I'm offended, as you speak generically of Italian Navy and of my own education as an officer ! We are speaking here of a specific historical event on May 24th 1941, involving the actions of some officers. Neither the RN as a whole nor your own values have ever been questioned by me. I can't believe that you are not able to make the difference, and I hope the point is closed here once and for all.... :kaput:

you wrote: " Your claims that it was done in the national interest are so incredibly biased and improbable as to defy belief."
It was done, Duncan, that's now 100% sure (if any doubt could still exist before looking at Adm W-W contradictions....), unless you are able to present a more reliable battle-map than the one drawn by Antonio Bonomi in "The Plot" thread here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495&start=945

However, if you prefer to think that they did so to save their neck instead of serving their country, I can be open to such a discussion......

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:56 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:@Dunmunro,
you wrote: " You would have us believe that Suffolk was only 18k yds from Bismarck from 0541......."
Hi Duncan, it's not me saying that. It's Capt. Ellis saying that he was at around 18000 yards from enemy at 5:53.

If you want to believe that he was affected by dementia, please feel free to do so. Having read his account, I don't.

I stated:
You would have us believe that Suffolk was only 18k yds from Bismarck from 0541, and was actually closing the range from that distance for 12 minutes before Hood opened fire, yet no one on Bismarck or PE, including the Baron, was concerned... :stubborn:
Again, this is too fantastic to believe, that Bismarck and PE tamely watched as Suffolk closed the range for all that time without anyone taking notice or taking action.


Exactly where were you on Sept 20 1985?

If you can't remember in detail, does that mean you are you suffering from dementia?


Suffolk's crew recorded the movements of the ship and Ellis used that information to write his report. That written report, based upon information recorded at the time indicates that Suffolk made a 360d turn at ~0542.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:15 pm

@Dunmunro:
Hi Duncan,
I see with pleasure that you are now using more moderate tones. Thank you.

At 4:47 Suffolk was at 15 sm from the enemy, at 5:41 PG measured her at 9.5 sm (when CS1 was already in sight, so no action could be reasonably taken) and at 5:53 she was still at 9 sm from BS, ready to flank-mark according to Ellis. I don't see anything strange in it.
The Germans were used to have Suffolk closing distance at less than 10 sm to keep radar contact with the early model of 284 Type.

Regarding the mirage (quite a frightening one, I suppose) and the turn to north (a decision that a Captain could not take lightly), I don't think it's something Ellis could have forgotten in his book, even years later, especially having in his hands the famous official report stating that the turn was made. His account is in my poor opinion, fully credible.

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by dunmunro » Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:33 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:@Dunmunro:
Hi Duncan,
I see with pleasure that you are now using more moderate tones. Thank you.

At 4:47 Suffolk was at 15 sm from the enemy, at 5:41 PG measured her at 9.5 sm (when CS1 was already in sight, so no action could be reasonably taken) and at 5:53 she was still at 9 sm from BS, ready to flank-mark according to Ellis. I don't see anything strange in it.
The Germans were used to have Suffolk closing distance at less than 10 sm to keep radar contact with the early model of 284 Type.

Regarding the mirage (quite a frightening one, I suppose) and the turn to north (a decision that a Captain could not take lightly), I don't think it's something Ellis could have forgotten in his book, even years later, especially having in his hands the famous official report stating that the turn was made. His account is in my poor opinion, fully credible.

Bye, Alberto
I asked if Ellis stated, specifically, that he submitted a falsified report of the events of May 24 1941. You failed to reply to this so I must assume that Ellis made no such statement in his autobiography.

You admit above that the KM participants fail to note that Suffolk was at 18K yds and closing from 0542 onward.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Sep 21, 2015 7:10 am

@Dunmunro:
Hi Duncan,
you wrote: "I asked if Ellis stated, specifically, that he submitted a falsified report of the events of May 24 1941. You failed to reply to this so I must assume that Ellis made no such statement in his autobiography."
Perhaps I missed this question: no problem. Your assumption is correct. In his autobiography Capt.Ellis make no explicit reference to his incorrect submitted official reports (that he had with him when writing the book) and just accounted what, according to him, happened on May 24.

you wrote: "You admit above that the KM participants fail to note that Suffolk was at 18K yds and closing from 0542 onward."
I never said that. Suffolk was at 15 sm from enemy at 4:47, closing distance up to 5:40 due to delta speed and to the fact that Germans were maneuvering in the meantime). She was at 176 hectometers from PG around 5:42 (PG radar measurement) and at 18000 yards from BS at 5:53 (according to Ellis autobiography). I don't think at all that you can say that Suffolk was closing after 5:42 (don't forget that BS was behind PG and increasing speed to 30 knots, we don't know exactly from what time but probably around the same 5:40)......


BTW: you failed to address my point regarding the "mirage" effect that is not mentioned in Ellis biography, so I have to assume that you admit this fact was not of secondary importance and could not have been omitted in an account written even some years after (and possibly the chapter of the book was written immediately after the battle, we don't know, do you ?)


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by pgollin » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:19 am

.

Might I ask the name of Captain Ellis's autobiography ?

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:23 am

Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by pgollin » Mon Sep 21, 2015 8:32 pm

.

Thank-you

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:37 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

first of all I am glad you used on your request the correct definition of “ Cover Up “ I have being using since the beginning of this discussion.

Cover up in my opinion means that when something happened and it was not good, instead of declaring the truth, you declare something different changing the information you have, and by doing so you modify the data “ Covering Up “ the truth with a set of incorrect information supporting the new version of the events you like to provide.

Here following the Denmark Strait “ Cover Up “ summary you requested.

The “ Cover Up “ started immediately after Adm Tovey reaction to Adm Pound unsuccessfully trying to convince him to court martial RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach, as per Winston Churchill request.

Adm Tovey asked Adm Pound a direct order from him to do it. The order never reached him.

Instead of providing the truth and go for the punishment, it was decided to go for the rewarding, consequently the events needs to be modified in order to support it, according to available W. Churchill previously released guidelines to be used :
Good news was made to seem better; bad news was toned down, delayed or sometimes suppressed.


Immediately after Adm Tovey started the coordination of the “ Cover Up “ changing the most critical data and declarations, in cooperation with RearAdm Wake-Walker.

Norfolk and Suffolk distance to the enemy and PoW retreat time being the most critical data to be changed on reports and maps.

On July 1941 the Adm Tovey dispatches reported Norfolk and Suffolk at around 15 sea miles from the enemy at open fire and PoW retreat time being 06.13.

Officers directly involved on the cover up : Adm Tovey, RearAdm Wake-Walker ( plus Ltnt Cdr Pinchin )
Officers that supported with no reaction the cover up : Capt Leach, Capt Ellis
Officers that did not support the cover up : Capt Phillips

The RN Admiralty after having unsuccessfully supported the initial Churchill court martial request, accepted the subsequent cover up activities, the Hood Second Board declaration change by WW and the incorrect documents submission.

At the end all the above Officers have been rewarded by the King on October 1941.

Bye Antonio :D
Hello Antonio,

thank you for the synopsis. I still do not understand, why changing of data and declarations was necessary at all. If the saga of the court martial is right, there was absolutely no need for it. Your scenario is cumbersome.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:23 am

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you wrote :
I still do not understand, why changing of data and declarations was necessary at all.
If the saga of the court martial is right, there was absolutely no need for it.
Your scenario is cumbersome.
I see your doubts.

I would like to ask you if you have ever lived into a Military environment, ... either being a soldier or better if you have been an Officer.

Than I would like to ask you if you have ever worked out the paperwork's to ask for a decoration into a Military environment.

It is not an easy and simple process, ... and yes it can be defined " cumbersome " like you wrote, ... but it is necessary to protect the final authority signing the decorations, ... in this case the King which has been a Gunnery Officer in the Royal Navy.

You should realize that the documents needed to submit this decoration request must have been submitted from the lower lever Command chain ( the single ship Captain ) all the way up until the Admiralty that, ... after acceptance, ... was going to write the proposal for the King, ... referencing the documents received from the Home Fleet in this case.

As you can easily realize now, ... it was going to be impossible to submit documents outlining an improper conducts such as negligence, failure to engage, improper withdrawal ... or even worst.

Consequently, ... all the documents must describe an OUTSTANDING conduct, ... certified by the ALL chain of command up to the Admiralty, ... and after a written acknowledgement ... was going to submit the decoration request to the King.

The victory celebration with the decorations, ... was part of the propaganda needs on that moment.

Does it looks more clear what happened and why now ?

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

Post Reply