Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ RF,

was it Capt Leach ? ... or was it directly McMullen/Skipwith ?

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80010751

From where you got the evidence that it was Capt Leach initiative and that he intentionally disregarded ViceAdm Holland order without a radio signal communication back to Hood ?

McMullen said they were asking a conformation to Hood : " make IMI " ... which is something different than reported by Capt Leach narrative ... :think:

With same respect, ... no one " shooting " anybody ... I just do not like that always ViceAdm Holland is made the " scapegoat " about what happened ... which I rate unfair, ... especially considering what has been done ( or NOT done ) during the same action by the other Officers.

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: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@all:
NO Captain would have disregarded an explicit order given by his flag officer regarding the choice of the target. Hadn't Holland corrected his order, PoW would have open fire to PG as Hood, no doubt. I'm not a supporter of Capt. Leach but I don't think he was intentionally insubordinate. He would have possibly made a signal to the flagship stating BS was behind but Hood corrected before.

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: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:@all:
NO Captain would have disregarded an explicit order given by his flag officer regarding the choice of the target. Hadn't Holland corrected his order, PoW would have open fire to PG as Hood, no doubt. I'm not a supporter of Capt. Leach but I don't think he was intentionally insubordinate. He would have possibly made a signal to the flagship stating BS was behind but Hood corrected before.

Bye, Alberto
Except when the admiral had previously indicated that Bismarck was the primary target. RN captains were expected to show initiative in pursuit of the main objective.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro & RF,

I agree with Duncan, ... but my point still stand, ... if Capt Leach realized ( either by himself or with McMullen/Skipwith input ) that Bismarck was behind the Prinz Eugen so the second ship and NOT the first on the line, ... was his duty to communicate it back to Hood and Vicedm Holland.

The answer is obvious : YES !

But we have NO evidence about a communication back between PoW and Hood related to the target selection ... :think:

We only have McMullen telling us that he asked about a confirmation from Hood of an incorrect order received according to him : " Tell them I.M.I., .... tell them I.M.I. " which means repeat the order to me for a confirmation ( which imply there was something wrong about it ).

Apparently in response he got the : G.O.B. - 1 = shift target one ship to the right ( so from Prinz Eugen to Bismarck ), ... which was the correction he needed/wanted.

Meanwhile he was already focusing on the correct target ... the Bismarck.

Did Capt Leach asked the " I.M.I. " to Hood ? We should have asked the communication guys of PoW, never interviewed by anybody about that morning events :shock:

McMullen said the correction came to him after he fired ... Capt Leach wrote the correction arrived just before PoW opened fire, ... and the radio log confirm this.

Was there a delay in the PoW internal communication ? Also in this case we will never know probably ... :think:

I like this one from Duncan :
RN captains were expected to show initiative in pursuit of the main objective.
It is just on the money ... you hit the nail on the head ... :wink:

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 )
Guest

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Guest »

Dear all,
May I first congratulate all contributors for their posting and of course for their various articles on the subject of the Denmarck Strait battle. I am a newcomer to forums and was a little worried about the title of some of some subjects as my uncle served aboard HMS Prince of Wales but have 'plodded on' and read through with an open mind and hope I may be able to help with a small contribution. I think the origional premiss was as to whether there was a case to answer for a Courts Martial on Articles of War No's 10-14. The Royal Navy has never run solely on the Articles but also on Fighting instructions, Progress in tactics and gunnery, Disposition and control of gunnery and fleet signals books and therefore we must also take these into consideration when looking into any action against personnel. To save time and space if it's ok I will condense the wording of the articles;
Article 10- failing to prepare for battle, ask for quarter/ yield their ship, I don't believe Holland, Wake-Walker, Leach, Kerr, Phillips or Ellis failed to prepare for battle all ships were at action stations with guns loaded. None of the above attempted to yield their ship to the enemy or signalled to be allowed quarter.
Article 11-observe the Admirals orders to join battle, Wake-Walker was following the orders of his C in C (Tovey) in the shadowing of the German Force (Admiralty Fighting Instructions 189-205). Unfortunately due to W/T silence, and later the errors of Suffolks enemy position reports, Holland could not instruct Wake-Walker to engage PG in any battle, and therefore one cannot try a man for refusing an order that was never sent. Capt Leach obeyed all Hollands orders and opened fire on BS when ordered to do so. Once Hood was lost those orders were no longer valid as in accordance with Admiralty Fighting Instruction 1 and 2 used his judgement to withdraw against a superior force.
Article 12- Cowardice, negligence or dissaffection withdraw, keep back from action, destroy an enemy or assist any allies, again Wake-Walker was never ordered into the fray, and was following the shadowing instructions for cruisers during a fleet action. The manoeuvres of Suffolk were also inaccordance with these rules, to maintain contact yet stay out of range of enemy fire and therefore it would be difficult to try these officers for doing their duty. I have read posts that suggest Leach and the PoW 'ran away' from the battle and i do think this is harsh. If this were the case then the PoW would have anchored in Hvalsfjord late on the 24th or early on the 25th of May with plenty of fuel, she did not. On the 24th May Capt Leach did not keep back or not enter into the fight, from opening fire at approx 0553 to BS and PG ceasing fire at 0609 PoW was in all respects in the fight. His withdrawl after 0603 cannot be really attributed to 'cowardice, negligence or dissaffection' as his actions were in accordance with Admiralty Fighting instructions 1,2,5,26,205,382 & 464, with seven 14 inch guns facing eight 15 inch eight 8 inch and six 5.9 inch guns a withdrawl was the most sensible thing to do. If he had carried on the fight and had further damage inflicted, especially if it reduced his speed further then more awkward questions would have to answered. It is difficult sometimes to look at history without the gift of hindsight, especially when we forget foresight. If you study the logs of HMS Pow from Jan-May 1941 you find her crew had a grand total of a mere four days drill on her main armament, and only seven and a half hours of sub calibre firing of her 14 inch armament and three and a quarter hours of full charge full calibre firing, most of which was without Y turret. In the hours before the engagement with BS and PG she once again suffered break downs in her main armament, all of this is no excuse but is highly relevant. Unfortunately for Capt Leach he did not command a £400,000 destroyer nor a £40,000 X craft, he had a £7 million plus battleship and all the responsibility that such an investment holds and gallantly and bravely losing such an investment was not an option.
Article 13-Cowardice negligence/dissaffection not persue an enemy/ relieve a friend, Wake-Walker, Leach, Phillips and Ellis did persue the enemy before and after the loss of the Hood and continued to do so, Wake-Walker until the final battle of the BS and the PoW and Suffolk until their fuel ran out. The PoW in persuit of BS aided Norfolk and Suffolk by re-engaging BS a further two times (Contrary to her running away).
Article 14- Presume to delay discourage action on pretence of wage arrears, I think this does not need any explanation as AFAIK all opposing combatants were fully paid up members so to speak.
I hope that, as a newbie, I have not offended anyone or overstepped the mark, but i did feel that i had to defend my uncle's ship and his Captain, unfortunately both Holland and Leach were blamed for things that were out of their control and decisions that were made that were the best options against bad situations and no one ever seems to mention or credit the excellent job that the men of the BS and the PG did on that day.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute
Cag
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

I think that the previous post was an interesting and fair summary.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Mr.Cag
Hi,
first of all, nice to meet you and welcome on board to this forum ! It's always a pleasure to have the opportunity to discuss with a knowledgeable person in a polite way.

Of course, I do agree with you that the Articles of War could not be considered as the only guidance. However, when you refer to the Articles of War 10-14, I think you are mentioning to the ones that were effective from 1757 till 1866. From 1866 till 1957, the Articles of War were included in the 1866 Naval Discipline Act, where they were updated (and re-phrased) to be in line with the new military situation.
http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm
The "new" articles to be considered here are 2 (points 1 and 3) and 3

2.1) "Use of utmost exertion to bring a ship in action": 3) "Assist a friend". both Wake-Walker and Ellis could have been asked to explain their actions as, being able to join the battle at 5:41 (according to Antonio Bonomi map, the most reliable and accurate I have seen so far.....), they maneuvered to keep away (for different reasons and with different justifications). If the operative orders to WW (that we are still struggling to find because we would like to confirm or not Adm.Tovey point 17 dispatches declarations) were to just shadow and strictly avoid battle, then you are right, but I suspect they were not phrased like that and, as a demonstration, even the fragment of the (very unreliable) Norfolk gunnery report says that fire was not open "due to the impossibility to spot the fall of shells", therefore the cruiser was meant to join the battle, with or without explicit orders. Of course WW should also have been asked to explain why he decided not to re-engage later that day.

2.3) "In time of action, improperly withdraw from fight". Capt.Leach did withdraw his ship from the fight (I admit that "run away" can be a bit harsh and I apologize, but also tactical withdrawn sounds to me a bit soft for a 160° turn away under full rudder, making smoke). Anyway, whether it was a proper or improper action, this is the key question.
If you have read through this full thread and the other ones related to it, you will have noticed that according to the PoW gunnery report, the last 3 semi-salvos were fired (in local control) at around 6:03 / 6:04. Where are you getting the 6:09 timing from ?
PoW_Gunnery.jpg
(133.33 KiB) Not downloaded yet
In addition, the guns working on board PoW were 9: only gun number 1 in A turret was out of action, some other guns just suffered misfires and lost some salvos, including final ones, as it happens on any battleship in action (BS included). If you say 7 guns, meaning that her (not outstanding) output was around 75% then you should consider that BS output was probably around 89% (outstanding for a very new battleship) and PG around 85% (PG suffered from the same problem as PoW, with one gun out of action since the beginning of the action). Under this interpretation, you should possibly consider that BS and PG had just 7 guns working too.
According to PoW own plot, the turn away was effective on her course already at 6:01:30, therefore the rudder was put hard to port at least 20 to 30 seconds before. This means that Capt.Leach decided to disengage just after the hit in compass platform (according to his declarations, the decision was already in his mind after Hood exploded). Therefore Capt. Leach should have explained to a possible board of inquiry why he decided to give up the attempt to stop BS, that as far as I know, was the objective (considered The priority) of the mission, before having the certitude to have at least damaged her. Of course here too it will be very interesting to have the precise operative orders given to Holland, as, if they were stating that the attempt to stop BS should have been done only in case of clearly favorable tactical situation (e..g. 2 against 1), then you are right.


I agree with you that an inquiry could have absolved in any case the 3 officers (also in view of the fact that their decisions were the perfect ones, with hindsight, as BS was sunk on 27 without other casualties/damages). Consequences however could have been very different in case BS was able to start her raider mission in Atlantic.
I doubt however that decorations could have been given to them for this action in any case after such an inquiry.

I think that at the end, decision was to celebrate instead of investigating (and possibly punish) for evident (and fully justified) war propaganda reasons.


One last question: what was your uncle duty on board PoW ? Where was he at the time of the action ? Did he comment with someone the reaction to the battle outcome on the ship and any comment made by the crew ? Did he confirm Geoffrey Brooke account (from "Alarm Starboard") that the Captain considered necessary to explain his decision to the crew just after the action ?

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)
Guest

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Guest »

Dear all,
Thank you Mr Virtuani for your kind words and as always your reasoned questions, its always a pleasure to have the chance to read posts from all the informed persons on this forum. I would guess (And i admit its only a guess but seems to follow previous actions) that specific orders for Wake-Walker and Holland were probably verbal from Tovey and any written one's are unlikely to be found I'm affraid. I realise that today it may be possible to say with hindsight what Wake-Walker should have done, he did make a statement to the inquiry as to regards his actions (As did Capt Leach) to explain his reasoning for not immediately re-engaging with PoW, I do think that the reasons put forward by more informed people than myself in this thread go someway to explaining the difficulties faced by Norfolk and Suffolk prior and during the action but do believe that their priority was to keep BS and PG under observation, however I do fully respect your opinion and hope information will be found to resolve all issues.
I do own copies of the PoW logs and her Gunnery reports and agree with you that her last salvos were timed at approx 0603 I put the 0609 time as I believe that is when the BS and PG ceased main armament fire on PoW, she may have been withdrawing but still under fire (I did do a little boxing in my early years against larger opponents and sometimes although I was not punching but being pummled I was still very much in a fight!). As for the seven gun as opposed to nine I bow to any more learned contributors with greater knowledge, I was using Capt Leach's report that Y turret had two guns U/S due to loading and mechanical problems, but agree about the German gunnery and will always champion the shooting of BS and PG on that day!
Unfortunately my uncle is no longer alive and never really wanted to speak of the action he saw (He was on S1 pompom) he joined PoW in Liverpool and was brought back from Singapore to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) to recoup from his injuries after the sinking. He was very proud of his ship and her Captain and generous in his praise for those he had to fight (German, Italian and Japanese the first Royal Navy battleship to do so I think) he was a little prickly on the subject of Churchill (And those in charge in Singapore) as I believed he blamed him for the loss of PoW and Repulse and a great deal of his mates.
Thank you all for your contributions and for all your kind comments as to my posts will catch up when able as away due to work for a while,
Cag.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

thanks for your inputs, they are all correct and deserve a careful thought in relation to every event evaluation.

This should have been probably the process that was needed back on 1941, if the decision was to go for the inquiry rather than follow Winston Churchill directions and start " covering up " the events with some alteration of the available data, reports and maps.

The main problem here is the fact that in order to sustain the war propaganda needs, ... they decided to alter the data in order to sustain the rewarding of the involved Officers, ... instead of proceed with an inquiry.

It is a very good thing that you feel like you want to defend your uncle's ship and his Captain :clap: .

The intent of this all discussion is not to dis-honor or court martial anybody anymore, ... not to take away any decoration they received.

We are simply looking for the historical truth, ... the cold, hard truth ... that will honor who give his life with honor for his country.

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: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
This should have been probably the process that was needed back on 1941, if the decision was to go for the inquiry rather than follow Winston Churchill directions and start " covering up " the events with some alteration of the available data, reports and maps.
So now it is Churchill who is ordering the "covering up"?
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

probably you have lost one piece of discussion Duncan, you need to read back some threads.

It is obvious that after the trial to court martial WW and Leach, Churchill changed his mind, ... otherwise they were going to face the court, ... it is not so difficult to realize it.

The reasons for it ?

We have found this as well, ... on the direction Churchill gave to Adm Godfrey ... that also explain what was done after and we are currently discussing.

You can find them on other threads and on the book by David Reynolds " In command of history " at page 114.

Now we know why they did not go under court martial and have been rewarded, ... why all the data have been altered and modified, ... why " The Plot " have been created, ... why Adm Tovey wrote his dispatches with 06.13 and around 15 sea miles, ... why the " cover up " occurred.

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 )
Guest

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Guest »

Hello all,
As a footnote to my post in reply to Mr Virtuani's kind questions the thought occurs that the objectives and priorities that each Commander had were as fluid as the conditions that they faced (Hence no written orders apart from those general orders that the Seekriegsleitung issued for Rheinuebung). Even Luetjens priorities changed due to his changing circumstances and had to take decisions to regain or alter them. If we look, as Mr Virtuani correctly writes, at the main priority of the cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk, I do believe that it was to maintain contact with BS and PG until heavy units could intercept and bring them to battle to inflict damage, and most probably to continue this thereafter if anything went wrong or BS and PG withdrew. If Norfolk and Suffolk had entered the fray then the chance of them losing contact due to damage or other circumstances, especially to Suffolk, would have become more likely as would the chance that the whereabouts of the German Squadron would have become lost. As Holland approached BS and PG his circumstances had changed too, the positioning was wrong and decisions were made to make the best situation occur out of a disadvantaged one, and soon as the Hood was lost I would suggest Capt Leach faced the same decision, circumstances had changed dramatically and tactically the only solution was to withdraw and the situation reverted to a shadowing role to enable the possibility of the Home Fleet to make contact (I think any gunnery battle would have fallen on KG V and PoW not the Repulse). However these are just my opinions but I hope that they help and give rise to further discussion. One of the few things my uncle did mention was his regard for the Italian bombers that attacked during operation Halberd, one in particular he remembered that stood off taking fire so as others could make their attacks unhindered which I'm attempting to trace. As always thank you and hope all my comments help and give no offence.
Cag.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Mr.Cag
thanks for your nice words and please feel free to call me Alberto, if you like.
you wrote: "I put the 0609 time as I believe that is when the BS and PG ceased main armament fire on PoW, she may have been withdrawing but still under fire (I did do a little boxing in my early years against larger opponents and sometimes although I was not punching but being pummled I was still very much in a fight!)."
You are right, PoW was in a fight until 6:09, even if the last shells hit her just around 6:02:30 according to their inclination (based on the PoW damage report available), and to the course of the ship. No hit reached PoW straight from aft, all of them came aboard when she was still turning away.
Therefore, staying with your boxing example (that I like....), after 6:03 your opponent was still trying to punch you but the referee (the smoke screen) had already placed himself between him and you......

If you are interested in the details of the damage sustained by PoW, you can have a look to these other threads and to this article from Antonio .Bonomi, still the best reference for the battle sequence, even if not yet including his enormous efforts done in these last years to better detail timing and distances, especially for NF and SF).
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6276
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6440
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6479
http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... trait2.htm

When I say that PoW disengagement happened before, I was meaning the timing of the decision taken by Capt.Leach to break off the engagement, with the order for the rudder hard to port given just after 6:01 (6:00:50 being the estimated timing of the hit in compass platform).

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: 276
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Francis Marliere »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:after 6:03 your opponent was still trying to punch you but the referee (the smoke screen) had already placed himself between him and you...
Alberto, I may be mistaken but as far as I know, HMS prince of Wales did not have a smoke generator, and the smoke screen you are talking about was probably made of funnel smoke. A funnel smoke screen is not as effective as chemical smoke screen because it is not dense enough and tends to go upward. It makes aiming more difficult but does not hide the target. So even if Prince of Wales did make smoke, Bismarck still had decent chances to hit him.

Best,

Francis
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Francis,
you are right and my "boxing" joke example wasn't fully correct.

I think the reason why PoW was not hit anymore after 6:03 is related to BS sharp turn to starboard to avoid the (non-existing) torpedoes following PG alarm, therefore loosing her precision.

So perhaps my "referee" here should have been the torpedo alarm more than the smoke screen or at least both..... :wink:

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)
Post Reply