Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Good news Antonio I look forward to the next instalments and hope that pics will be available of that 1/100 Tirpitz.

The difficulty with all this is that for some the modifications mentioned are in there to justify actions of those some feel are at fault, and in there to cover things up. Where as for others it's due to new evidence between the two inquiries or evidence from new sources or just incorrect or mistaken entries.

I agree that the 'fact' is that there are disparities in evidences for a great deal of evidences between the two inquiries and reports, but proving the real or hidden reason for these without any other substantial evidence is almost impossible, as there are plausible reasons and other facts for and against, therefore it can only ever be opinion.

Fundimentaly we have no evidence that Wake-Walker had any instruction to engage, or if he had any not to. We just have evidence that both he and Ellis thought their role was to follow and flank mark. So if we look logically, if one ship had engaged and the other had refrained from doing so we would have to look as to why. But neither ship attempted to engage, which allows us at least a little insight.

If both these officers believed that this was their role what justification is needed to save them from something they are not accused of? Why was Ellis not mentioned in their Lordships report? If the battle had been longer and became a running fight would Norfolk have attempted to engage? Who knows.

The fundimental question is whether their Lordships were also of the opinion that the cruisers were there to follow and flank mark? The only mention in their Lordships decision IIRC regarding Wake-Walker was in connection to PoW engaging Bismarck, not the cruisers. If this is the case, then there is no reason to embellish to justify anything.

I'm afraid comparing the role of Prinz Eugen to that of Norfolk and Suffolk is like comparing apples to bananas. Their roles were significantly different, Prinz Eugen was attempting to break out into the Atlantic to conduct commerce raiding and finding itself coming under fire from two battleships.

Norfolk and Suffolk were there to follow the enemy to bring bigger ships in to stop them from commerce raiding, if the worst came to the worst (and it did thanks to excellent German gunnery) they had to keep contact with the enemy. So the role of follow and flank mark possibly seems to be the most logical and most efficient one.

I have searched (I'm rather limited in the amount of time I can devote to this) the courts martial records and so far have not found any evidence of proceedings against Leach or Wake-Walker. But absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence so I'll keep looking.

I have tried to be fair to both sides here, if you believe there is a cover up, I have no problem, if you believe that there was not, again no problem.

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

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Dunmunro wrote: "Submitting a false report was a criminal offence."
Hi Duncan,
it was however a less serious offense than "misconducting in the presence of the enemy", based on the expected punishment at that time (ref. Naval Discipline Act 1866-1957 part I articles 2, 3 and....35.... http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm).

you wrote: "the above directive applied to public information releases not to classified internal reports. "
however the decorations were public acts of the King, published in the London Gazette Supplement and these recognitions would not have been possible without the Admiralty approval of the officers behavior "based on Tovey's despatches". Tovey couldn't have written what he wrote without having in his hands the reports of his subordinates as supporting evidences.......

IMO the "embellishment" of the reports was indeed needed due to war propaganda reasons.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:41 pm, edited 6 times 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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Cag wrote: "Prinz Eugen was .... finding itself coming under fire from two battleships."
Hi Mr.Cag,
Adm.Schmundt was not of your opinion. He asked Brinkmann to justify why he did NOT moved his ship out of the line on his own initiative when the battle began......
The comparison of PG with NF and SF during the battle is embarrassing, and it would have been evaluated much more severely, hadn't BS been sunk later.

you wrote: "we have no evidence that Wake-Walker had any instruction to engage"
Any commanding officer has the duty to try to engage the enemy during a battle, except in case he has received explicit orders NOT to do so, and these orders for W-W don't exist AFAIK.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:45 pm, 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)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto, yes I've read those and you're correct that Brinkmann had to justify why he put his ship in danger, I guess he had no real choice but to do so, he was already under fire from Hood, but this takes nothing away from Brinkmann and Prinz Eugen as in hindsight it was the right choice.

Ellis and Wake-Walker did not need to put their ships in danger, and so did not do so, again in hindsight the right choice. They had delivered their quarry to the big guns, the battle was between Bismarck and Hood and PoW, Suffolk Norfolk and to a certain extent Prinz Eugen were not the focal point. Bismarck was the ultimate danger and the ultimate prize, for the British it all went wrong.

Suddenly a theoretical two battleships to one advantage became a battleship and heavy cruiser against one battleship disadvantage and Prinz Eugen played an important role and evened the odds.

If PG had been the rear ship, if Holland had signalled his intentions or if not, might Norfolk have engaged PG? Who knows we could speculate forever, the facts are neither British cruiser engaged Bismarck and neither Captain was asked to explain why he did not, as perhaps he did not need to? The point is there is no evidence that there were orders or expectations for Wake-Walker to engage either, it is an opinion that perhaps he should, the important opinion was that of their Lordships.

I understand your opinion, and am happy to accept it. I've put forward my misgivings, all of which I hope are logical.

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

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Cag wrote: "Ellis and Wake-Walker did not need to put their ships in danger, and so did not do so, again in hindsight the right choice."
Hi Mr.Cag,
yes but only with hindsight..... :think:

you wrote: "Suddenly a theoretical two battleships to one advantage became a battleship and heavy cruiser against one battleship disadvantage"
...a disadvantage only due to the fact that W-W failed to issue (at 5:16 or even at 4:45) the orders to have his ships ready for the battle. Even being in advantage, W-W should not have "left the battlefield entirely to Holland" (as per the Baron).
Beatty did not leave the battlefield when Jellicoe was finally there with the whole Grand Fleet to handle the Hochseeflotte..... :negative:

No commanding officer need explicit orders to fight during wartime and no explicit orders to W-W forbidding him to engage the enemy have been produced by anybody here. The onus of the proof is yours here.


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)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto, again absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. I agree we do not know Wake-Walkers orders, if we do not we can only assume and have an opinion of what he should or should not have done. We do know that for Ellis and Wake-Walker they considered their tactical function, a major consideration, was to follow and flank mark. What their intentions were as to what their future participation would be, if any, is also not known.

The battle or main action as Ellis describes it was between BC1 and Bismarck. Not Norfolk and Suffolk and Prinz Eugen or Norfolk and Bismarck. Is because PG participated a reason to assume Norfolk should also have? Norfolk sighted Bismarck at 05.41, there was no message from Suffolk that suggested that Prinz Eugen was the lead ship.

To gift Wake-Walker with such foresight of the loss of Hood so quickly thanks to hindsight is a tad unfair, just after 05.50 Norfolk headed directly for Bismarck, why?

Again I accept and respect your opinion, the above posts simply show my questions, as of yet they still for me remain unanswered, I hope you understand my thought process.

Best wishes
Cag.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Cag wrote: "Ellis and Wake-Walker did not need to put their ships in danger, and so did not do so, again in hindsight the right choice."
Hi Mr.Cag,
yes but only with hindsight..... :think:

you wrote: "Suddenly a theoretical two battleships to one advantage became a battleship and heavy cruiser against one battleship disadvantage"
...a disadvantage only due to the fact that W-W failed to issue (at 5:16 or even at 4:45) the orders to have his ships ready for the battle. Even being in advantage, W-W should not have "left the battlefield entirely to Holland" (as per the Baron).
Beatty did not leave the battlefield when Jellicoe was finally there with the whole Grand Fleet to handle the Hochseeflotte..... :negative:

No commanding officer need explicit orders to fight during wartime and no explicit orders to W-W forbidding him to engage the enemy have been produced by anybody here. The onus of the proof is yours here.


Bye, Alberto
This is all covered in the Fighting Instructions:
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.
http://www.admirals.org.uk/records/adm/ ... SectIV.php
and so forth.

W-W did absolutely wrong, and there was nothing more that he could have done.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Cag wrote: ".....is becausese PG participated a reason to assume Norfolk should also have?.... "
Hi Mr.Cag,
I think that in case you want to reward W-W, a comparison with PG is needed, and yes IMO CS1 should have engaged to support BC1. He could have done so, as demonstrated by the battlemap and by W_W own declaration in the interview. He had more than 40 minutes to prepare and close range, he did not, preferring to "leave the battlefield to Holland".

Dunmunro wrote: "...This is all covered in the Fighting Instructions:"
Point 171 just confirm that "As long as the primary object of a vessel is to shadow" (that is during the night only....) W-W should not engage. At dawn, when he sighted BC1 (5:16) the shadowing mission was OVER ("large forces brought in position to deliver attack" and nobody could expect that any shadowing mission should be resumed) and his only duty was to support BC1 action.

In any case you don't decorate officers for obtusely following the "fighting instructions", but only for some "exceptional" behavior.... :negative:


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)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto, I think I've put forward my questions as regard as to why perhaps the roles of the cruisers were different, and to where Wake-Walker was heading from just after 05.50 to 06.00. I think Ellis states that the shadowing was to continue pending the outcome of the main action?

I understand your viewpoint, and accept your opinion. I think Wake-Walker, if you think logically, would have been given a 'reward' for following Bismarck throughout the chase until the early hours of the 25th, helping deliver Bismarck to BC1, and tben continuing on with the search to be present at the end of Bismarck on the 27th.

If you watch the famous post Bismarck film of those involved you see the Captain of the Norfolk talking of how proud they were to be the only ship in the fleet to be involved from start to finish.

I am not trying to alter your opinion, I'm asking relevant questions that need answers.

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

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Mr.Cag,
I understand your points, my opinion is just that, with hindsight, we can now say (as Ellis said in his autobiography) that NF and SF should have continued the shadowing, but at 5:16 W-W should have acted as if his shadowing mission was over, and he did not.

In the aftermath, all declarations regarding W-W role were changing in this direction: 1) demonstrate his "unawareness" of BC1 proximity and 2) "enlarging" the battlefield in order to put NF at 15+ sm from enemy at any time to show that he could not engage. Both 1) and 2) (underlined) are incorrect statements, as recently demonstrated.
IMO this demonstrate that someone in the Admiralty (or at Downing Street) felt the need to have his role at DS "embellished" before proceeding with the rewarding, but I know this is just my opinion and I do respect your one as well.


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)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto, no problem whatsoever I fully understand what you are saying and accept all of your viewpoints as always. I know you do the same, for me these are stumbling blocks I can't work out as of yet.

I just have questions, I try to see this Machiavellian dastardly plot to hide truth or cover up supposed wrong doings to stop courts martial. But Wake-Walker was shadowing Bismarck and Prinz Eugen, who having already altered course may, at any time or on sight of more British ships, have turned away, doubled back or headed straight for the new unknown threat or toward Norfolk itself.

We have the gift of hindsight, Wake-Walker did not have the gift of foresight, therefore he had to cover all scenarios, once BC1 was spotted and their position on the battlefield confirmed, Norfolk's plot shows she turned toward Bismarck, her log shows she was at full speed from 05.00 to 06.00 (page 1 of her log gives a table of distances travelled at all speeds, economical, various natures of despatch and full speed. At full speed 30.0nm per hour was travelled at .97 tons of fuel burnt per nm.).

These are my stumbling blocks and I am trying to see how to resolve them.

As always best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Cag wrote: "once BC1 was spotted and their position on the battlefield confirmed, Norfolk's plot shows she turned toward Bismarck, "
Hi Mr.Cag,
at 5:16 W-W saw smoke that he "knew must be BC1", but at 5:41 he turned to port to OPEN range..... :negative:

you wrote (my italics): "her (Norfolk) log shows she was at full speed from 05.00 to 06.00"
No evidence is in the Norfolk log that the ship was running at "full speed". During the night she was doing 30.2 knots average speed for 2 consecutive hours, in a timeframe when there was NO need to hurry up..... From 5 to 6 both speed and RPM were marginally inferior, when there were good reasons to ask to his chief engineer to do his best to finally (after the whole night being too far from the enemy) get a visual contact with Bismarck...... :negative:

I frankly don't see any attempt from W-W to be in the engagement, as the Baron very "diplomatically" reported in his book.


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)
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag »

Hi All

Hi Alberto, again the quest for answers to the fundimental questions remain unanswered.

Your point 1. No, if you look at the plot map he maintained a course toward the enemy after seeing smoke at 05.16 and on sighting the enemy at 05.41 he ran a parallel course of 220° until he knew where BC1 was in relation to himself and Bismarck and then turned hard toward the enemy. To say he opened the range when in fact he was running parallel is not very fair at all and would it not be tactically inept to continue to close until all the players were visible, surely?

Your point 2. Page 1 of Norfolks log says

Full speed = distance of 30.0 nm covered over an hour's period. 31 tons of oil is burnt for that distance or .97 of a mile run per ton of fuel.

From 05.00 to 06.00 Norfolk travelled 30.0nm at a mean rpm of 285. Would this indicate a very high speed over that hour not a Sunday afternoon dawdle? I think logically this indicates full speed? 30.2nm I'm sure you know means 30nm and 2 tenths of a mile, 2 tenths is approx 405yds?

I'm afraid I'm not here to dissuade you from your belief, or tell you that you have it wrong, I can't say that, I'm asking questions that don't seem to be being answered. I'm happy to accept this and carry on trying to resolve them myself, there is no problem.

Best wishes
Cag.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Herr Nilsson »

IMHO W-W's course after 0541 is an interception course. At least his course was between the 30kn (green) and 32kn (red) interception course.
interception.jpg
interception.jpg (46.16 KiB) Viewed 765 times
"[H]e turned to port to OPEN range" is therefore somewhat exaggerated. He did not open range but he was approaching. I know my opinion - in contrast to other members opinions - is not important by nature, but in my opinion this course was the best W-W could do until the commecement of action to keep all options open to react depending on what the Germans would do.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Cag wrote: " I'm asking questions that don't seem to be being answered."
Hi Mr.Cag,
I assure you that I'm trying to answer your questions....possibly it's my bad English..... :(

you wrote: "To say he opened the range when in fact he was running parallel is not very fair at all "
right, here I expressed myself badly.
He was on a course that allowed him to clearly close range (when he was feeling he was too far to engage, BTW), and as soon as he saw Bismarck he turned in order NOT to close the range anymore, while he knew since 5:16 that BC1 was there to engage the enemy...... What is the logical conclusion (that also the Baron apparently shared with me) ? :negative:


you wrote: "I think logically this indicates full speed? "
You may think that, and I have to respect your opinion that is anyway an opinion. Fact is that she run slightly faster for 2 consecutive hours in the night, when there was no apparent reason for demanding full speed to his engines...... My opinion is that If Norfolk could run at 30.2 knots without any reason, she should easily be able to run 31 knots under exceptional circumstances like the vicinity of BC1 and the upcoming battle indubitably were....


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