Cover up synopsis

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:24 am

Hello Antonio,

yes I was a soldier. "Unfortunately" there was no war during my military service. :( :wink:

However. Were talking about Leach and Wake-Walker and not the lower level command chain. In both cases their superior officer was Tovey. Tovey just had to write a despatch.
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 1:11 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you have been lucky like me ... being an Officer on peaceful time ... :wink:

Before writing his dispatches, Adm Tovey wanted to be covered by supporting signed reports.

YES, of course the 2 Officers mainly involved were Wake-Walker and Leach, ... but do not underestimate Capt Ellis too, ... because in light of his autobiography listed events, ... he could have been blamed for not having opened fire as well.

In any case, Tovey asked the report from Wake-Walker ( CS1 ), ... which asked the reports from Ellis and Phillips before delivering his one to Tovey ( Home Fleet ).

Tovey based his report on the Wake-Walker one, ... covering himself, ... and Wake-Walker was covered by Ellis and Phillips ( partial ) reports.

Leach submitted his report directly to Tovey ( Home Fleet ).

It is interesting to notice that it was NOT Capt Leach to write 06.13 on his report, ... but Wake-Walker on his report referencing to PoW retreat description ... :shock:

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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:00 pm

But after Tovey's despatch was no need for modifications and also no danger of court martial anymore and the request for decoration took its course as well.
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 2:31 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

Tovey declaration of 2 minutes for PoW retreat time was May 30th, 1941.
WW declaration of 20.000 yards for Hood First Board was May 31st, 1941.

Hood First Board minute was June 3rd, 1941.

WW new report to Tovey with 15 sea miles and 06.13 for PoW was June 11th, 1941.
Tovey dispatches was July 5th, 1941.

There was still the need to cancel and overwrite the 20.000 yards ( 10 sea miles ) with the 15 sea miles ( 30.000 yards ).

This happened with the Hood Second board called in the middle of June 1941, ... but done in August 1941.

Moving from this declaration for Norfolk :
Norfolk_Hood_First_Board_evidence.jpg
Norfolk_Hood_First_Board_evidence.jpg (56.42 KiB) Viewed 1156 times
... to these ones for both Norfolk and Suffolk ( not present on the Hood First board because at sea ) :
Suffolk_Norfolk_Hood_Second_Board_evidence.jpg
Suffolk_Norfolk_Hood_Second_Board_evidence.jpg (77.66 KiB) Viewed 1156 times
Please read them very carefully, ... and take note of the importance on " The Plot " as evidence, ... as well as the " mirage effect " used for both Suffolk and Norfolk at the Second board.

Once you have read them, ... go back and read again the First board Norfolk declaration, ... and compare them.

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 )

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

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by dunmunro » Thu Oct 01, 2015 7:59 pm

I have a friend who believes in UFOs (space aliens visiting the earth). I say there's no evidence for this. He states that since some UFO sightings can't be explained, that this is proof for extraterrestrials visiting the earth. I reply that it is only proof of unexplained phenomena and that two hundred years ago the same "evidence" would be used to support the existence of angels, and a thousand years before, the existence of dragons and all these explanations are equally valid...and equally improbable; the most likely and probable explanations are be be found in natural phenomena and human psychology.



Unexplained discrepancies do not prove anything. Proof requires positive evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Discrepancies between reports and testimony doesn't prove a conspiracy. Proof of a conspiracy requires hard evidence that document tampering took place and positive proof of collusion. To prove a conspiracy you would need to show that no other plausible explanation exists and documentary evidence exists stating that someone ordered something to happen. To prove that the RN conspired someone has to be found on record as stating that they participated in a conspiracy and/or that they were ordered to alter documents. Someone not saying something is not proof. Discrepancies in documents or testimony are not proof.

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 8:23 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

Duncan, I am an easy guy, ... and I am sure you have read and well realized, since you have accepted yesterday, that " The Plot " is an incorrect document, especially about bearings and distances.

Now I invite you to read the first statement of the Notes of Evidence of Suffolk and Norfolk at the Hood Second board.

They state :

Suffolk evidence : The plot shows that this ship was 28-30 miles from Hood ...

and

Norfolk evidence : The plot gives Norfolk's distance from Hood as 15 miles.

We have realized that " The Plot " is an incorrect document, ... so RearAdm Wake-Walker changed his previous released and signed declaration with an incorrect document the Hood Second Board accepted.

This is out of discussion and well proved now.

More, now we also know thanking Capt Ellis that " The Plot " shows something not real, ... since Capt Ellis declared something different on his autobiography, and this makes " The Plot " not only surely incorrect, ... but made intentionally false.

No one is talking about conspiracy, we are just proving an evident " Cover Up " occurred for propaganda reasons.

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 )

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

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by dunmunro » Thu Oct 01, 2015 9:04 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

Duncan, I am an easy guy, ... and I am sure you have read and well realized, since you have accepted yesterday, that " The Plot " is an incorrect document, especially about bearings and distances.

Now I invite you to read the first statement of the Notes of Evidence of Suffolk and Norfolk at the Hood Second board.

They state :

Suffolk evidence : The plot shows that this ship was 28-30 miles from Hood ...

and

Norfolk evidence : The plot gives Norfolk's distance from Hood as 15 miles.

We have realized that " The Plot " is an incorrect document, ... so RearAdm Wake-Walker changed his previous released and signed declaration with an incorrect document the Hood Second Board accepted.

This is out of discussion and well proved now.

More, now we also know thanking Capt Ellis that " The Plot " shows something not real, ... since Capt Ellis declared something different on his autobiography, and this makes " The Plot " not only surely incorrect, ... but made intentionally false.

No one is talking about conspiracy, we are just proving an evident " Cover Up " occurred for propaganda reasons.

Bye Antonio :D
Errors in documents are common and are not evidence of criminal intent, nor do they invalidate the general content of the document.

Wake-Walker made a statement at one inquiry, then produced evidence at a 2nd showing that his first statement was incorrect. The evidence produced at the 2nd inquiry is broadly in agreement with Norfolk's gunnery report. Wake-Walker, by correcting his error, did what any reasonable and honest person would do, if they realized that they had made a mistake and were given a 2nd chance to rectify it. Wake-Walker never stated that he was ordered to alter evidence and/or that he altered evidence or admiralty documents.

Ellis making an incorrect statement is not proof of anything. Ellis never stated that he was ordered to change his report. He never claimed to be part of a conspiracy. Can you prove that old sailors never make mistakes in their memoirs?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. To prove conspiracy you need a direct statement to that effect.

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 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:16 am

Dunmunro wrote: "Wake-Walker, by correcting his error, did what any reasonable and honest person would do, if they realized that they had made a mistake and were given a 2nd chance to rectify it."
Hi Duncan,
I disagree. As an officer (or even as an honest person) if I have to correct a wrong statement, I don't go in front of a 2nd board with an incorrect document (the 3 bearings lost in the middle of the sea are a shame that anybody saw at the board and any senior member should have well understood.....) stating that my distance was 30000 yards, after having signed a drawing where I said it was 20000.
I'm sorry, this is NOT the behavior of an "honest person" willing to amend an error.
If I want to amend an error, I say clearly (assuming my responsibilities) that I was mistaken and I explain why I need to amend the error.
What W-W did is not a honest correction of an error, it's simply covering a declaration with another.

you wrote: "Can you prove that old sailors never make mistakes in their memoirs ?"
Now please stop this "story" of the poor old sailor. :stop:
You have read Ellis chapter, you have realized how precise and detailed are his accounts on 284 functioning, on flank-marking training needs and his careful examination of the loss of contact of BS in the night (with related accusations to W-W confirming the historical analysis of the errors done by the flag officer......we will speak about this aspect too).
He had in front of him his "official report" and he intentionally DECIDED to tell another story, totally different and conflicting with his report .
I hope this is the last time you try to dismiss Ellis book as the confused memoirs of a poor old man. :stop:

Please be consistent and have the courage to say that, in your opinion, he was intentionally lying when writing his book for personal interests, as I had the courage to say that he was asked to write his official reports the way he did.


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)

Francis Marliere
Senior Member
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by Francis Marliere » Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:08 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Capt Ellis too (...)could have been blamed for not having opened fire as well.
Antonio,

no offense, but I fail to see why Captain Ellis and others should be blamed for not having opened firing. Having not studied the battle in depth, I do not know wether the cruisers were at 10, 12 or 15 sea miles from the German ships. However, even if the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were within 8" guns range, it made sense not to open fire.

The probability of a hit was very remote since the ships would shoot a long range with 4 guns only. If a target was hit, the chances to damage it were fairly low. Opening fire in the other hand may disturb HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales's own fire. Hence, the cruisers gunfire at this stage would probably cause more harm to their own side than to the Germans.

Best,

Francis

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

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by dunmunro » Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:26 am

Francis Marliere wrote:
Antonio Bonomi wrote:Capt Ellis too (...)could have been blamed for not having opened fire as well.
Antonio,

no offense, but I fail to see why Captain Ellis and others should be blamed for not having opened firing. Having not studied the battle in depth, I do not know wether the cruisers were at 10, 12 or 15 sea miles from the German ships. However, even if the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen were within 8" guns range, it made sense not to open fire.

The probability of a hit was very remote since the ships would shoot a long range with 4 guns only. If a target was hit, the chances to damage it were fairly low. Opening fire in the other hand may disturb HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales's own fire. Hence, the cruisers gunfire at this stage would probably cause more harm to their own side than to the Germans.

Best,

Francis
I quoted The Fighting Instructions:
SECTION IV.-SHADOWING

GENERAL

170. The object of shadowing is to supply the Admiral with continuous information of the enemy's movements. The purpose for which this information is required, i.e., the final object of the shadowing, will have a considerable influence on the conduct of shadowing units and should, if possible, be known to them.

171. As long as the primary object of a vessel is to shadow, offensive action which will defeat this object is unsound. When, by retaining touch, there is every prospect of bringing large forces into a position to deliver attacks on the enemy, shadowing vessels should not, generally speaking, take offensive action until after these attacks have been completed. If, however, a favourable opportunity occurs for firing torpedoes unseen at the enemy main force, shadowing vessels should not hesitate to do so. Shadowing may be carried out by surface vessels, submarines or aircraft.
In the absence of orders to the contrary Wake-Walker's cruisers were following RN doctrine as laid out in the 1939 Fighting Instructions, to remain out of range and continue their primary mission.

It is the Fighting Instructions which RN captains will follow as a general guide in conducting naval warfare.

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

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by dunmunro » Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:58 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "Wake-Walker, by correcting his error, did what any reasonable and honest person would do, if they realized that they had made a mistake and were given a 2nd chance to rectify it."
Hi Duncan,
I disagree. As an officer (or even as an honest person) if I have to correct a wrong statement, I don't go in front of a 2nd board with an incorrect document (the 3 bearings lost in the middle of the sea are a shame that anybody saw at the board and any senior member should have well understood.....) stating that my distance was 30000 yards, after having signed a drawing where I said it was 20000.
I'm sorry, this is NOT the behavior of an "honest person" willing to amend an error.
If I want to amend an error, I say clearly (assuming my responsibilities) that I was mistaken and I explain why I need to amend the error.
What W-W did is not a honest correction of an error, it's simply covering a declaration with another.

you wrote: "Can you prove that old sailors never make mistakes in their memoirs ?"
Now please stop this "story" of the poor old sailor. :stop:
You have read Ellis chapter, you have realized how precise and detailed are his accounts on 284 functioning, on flank-marking training needs and his careful examination of the loss of contact of BS in the night (with related accusations to W-W confirming the historical analysis of the errors done by the flag officer......we will speak about this aspect too).
He had in front of him his "official report" and he intentionally DECIDED to tell another story, totally different and conflicting with his report .
I hope this is the last time you try to dismiss Ellis book as the confused memoirs of a poor old man. :stop:

Please be consistent and have the courage to say that, in your opinion, he was intentionally lying when writing his book for personal interests, as I had the courage to say that he was asked to write his official reports the way he did.


Bye, Alberto
W-W and his captains wrote their reports and all 3 reports stated that the two cruisers were out of effective gunnery range and thise reports would have corrected his statements at the first inquiry.
Wake-Walker presented his evidence at the 2nd inquiry for all to see, and no one stated that it was incorrect.

Are you saying that if you become aware that you gave incorrect testimony at an inquiry that you wouldn't attempt to correct it?

Ellis's account of the Bismarck/Hood action is not precise and even you don't believe that Ellis was correct when he stated that "...Norfolk was miles out of sight and gunrange when the action between the Germans and the Hood and Prince of wales began." Ellis's claim that Suffolk transmitted on the FC wave is not supported by PoW, Norfolk or even Suffolk's own reports.

There is absolutely no documentary evidence recorded on May 24 from any participant that Suffolk was at 18k yds from Bismarck when the action began at 0552.



Ellis gives us only 9 sentences when describing the battle.

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

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by dunmunro » Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:59 am

Duplicate post

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 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:42 am

Dunmunro: "Are you saying that if you become aware that you gave incorrect testimony at an inquiry that you wouldn't attempt to correct it? "
Hi Duncan,
no, I'm saying that if I'm honestly aware that I said something wrong, I say clearly that I was wrong,, not simply stating a different thing. This is covering, not correcting.
Dunmunro wrote: "Ellis's account of the Bismarck/Hood action is not precise and even you don't believe that Ellis was correct when he stated that "...Norfolk was miles out of sight and gunrange when the action between the Germans and the Hood and Prince of wales began." Ellis's claim that Suffolk transmitted on the FC wave is not supported by PoW, Norfolk or even Suffolk's own reports.
There is absolutely no documentary evidence recorded on May 24 from any participant that Suffolk was at 18k yds from Bismarck when the action began at 0552.
Ellis gives us only 9 sentences when describing the battle."
In these 9 sentences, he intentionally writes a totally different thing than his "official report" , having them in front of him, stating a quite precise distance ("around 18000 yards), justifying (as strictly needed, being at 18000 yards = 9sm, during a vital battle and being his shadowing function over since the "Enemy in sight" message from BC1) his (debatable) decision not to open fire, saying that "Suffolk tactical function was follow and flank-mark". :stubborn:

Regarding evidences supporting Ellis declaration, we have 1) the PG radar measurement (17600 meters), 2) the fact that from Suffolk they were able to see hits on BS (no way at 21 sm as per Pinchin wrong "Plot"), 3) the suspicious "mirage" effect excuse for turning to the north (reported only by the British cruisers) and most of all, 4) the RDF bearings from Norfolk, left in the middle of the sea by Pinchin, clearly closing the distance. Do you need more ? :shock:

If you want documents written on May 24, then please answer this question: where is the gunnery report of Suffolk (that open fire at 6:19 and fires 9 broadsides at 18:55 straddling the enemy, that same day) ? Where are the 13 tactical plots of Suffolk that should have been attached to W-W report ? :think: :think:

I never said that I don't trust Ellis declaration that Norfolk was out of sight. I said that if Suffolk and apparently Norfolk too were unable to see each other till they were very close, it means visibility was not so good in that direction. Another explanation is that he did not want to involve anybody else (W-W) in his disclosure on Suffolk position.....

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Oct 02, 2015 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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)

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 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 11:11 am

Hello everybody,

@ Francis Marliere,

I basically agree with your evaluation that by the way is in line with Capt Ellis own explanation about the reasons why, ... despite being at 18.000 yards from the enemy, ... he did not open fire that morning.

But, just as Dunmunro ( Duncan ) wrote : " It would have been a violation of the articles of war for Suffolk not to engage the enemy " ... and more from Duncan about this argument : " Suffolk's 8in guns posed a serious danger to Bismarck and a deadly danger to PE and the possibility that the KM would ignore such a threat is zero, just as the possibility is zero that an RN captain and gunnery team would ignore two such important targets during a crucial engagement ".

So my point is that if an inquiry was going to occur for the Denmark Strait battle, ... Capt Ellis too (...) could have been blamed for not having opened fire as well, ... just as Dunmunro explained from his point of view here above.

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 )

Francis Marliere
Senior Member
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Cover up synopsis

Post by Francis Marliere » Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:10 am

Antonio,

I fail to see your point. As far as I know, you are the author of the 'cover up' theory. Please correct me if I'm mistake, but you, not Duncan, blame admiral Walke-Walker for not opening fire. So if you agree with me on the fact that not opening fire made sense, why do you blame admiral Walke-Walker ? If you don't blame him, why do you think he should have been court-martialled ?

Best,

Francis

Post Reply