The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:53 am Hello everybody,

if only those " hooligan/deniers " were going to stick to the facts and not jumping up and down on any interpretation they like to try to sell to this historical fact we were going to live more easily.

It is obvious that Stephen Roskill and Graham Rhys-Jones did not want to provide further analysis to this event, looking at the reactions we are seeing here in it is more than obvious now.
It's interesting that you feel you know Roskill's mind on this; are you in touch with him?
It is a fact that Adm Tovey changed the 06:02 ( after 2 minutes ) to 06:13 ( adding more than 10 minutes ), it is a fact that Adm Tovey " moved in " the PoW Y turret jamming ( compared to Capt Leach Official report ).
Maybe the fact that all 3 RN ships stated that the action ended at ~0613 had something to do with it as well.
It is a fact that the Norfolk 20.000 yards became 30.000 yards already in June/July ( WW report and Tovey dispatches ) long before the Hood second board called in August and the shameful Pinchin " The Plot " incorrectly made on purpose to change it officially too.
Your own reconstruction, extensively discussed here, shows that the range was substantially greater than 20K yds.

Not to talk of what Capt Ellis revealed us thru his autobiography ( 9 sm ) being obviously done on his Official distance report ( wrote 15 sm ).
Ellis also stated that Norfolk was miles out of sight and out of gunrange...but it's obvious that Ellis' memory was failing as he's forgotten ( I guess you have too - isn't memory loss insidious?) the 360d turn that he steered Suffolk through from 0542 -0550 which would have increased the range by ~15k yds (at a minimum) and for Suffolk to be at 18K yds at 0553 would have meant she was within a few thousand yards of Bismarck prior to the turn...:oops:
All is logic and the " Cover Up " well demonstrated by those facts.
Something has indeed been well demonstrated! :lol:
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

Your mischievous tendency to truncate quotes to deliberately change sense and distort meaning to serve your purposes has been demonstrated many times, but this case is unusual because you have done it to your own words. :D

You posted:
However you have done a great step forward: you have reconstructed precisely the battle and you have noticed the intentional alteration of facts done in the reports. Only Rhys-Jones went a bit in this direction, speaking of "Tovey's version" but not studying the battle in detail and thus implicitly confirming the same version.

In the two sentences you are talking about the insignificant and trivial differences in the reports, and about the whole battle and then stating Rhys-Jones went a bit in this direction, which he didn't, whereas clear analysis of what he actually wrote shows he was only talking about the assessment of Dalrymple-Hamilton's movements.

Why not accept your mistake, (actually Antonio made it first, you merely parroted it), and resolve never to use the phrase "Tovey's version went to the printers" again as a pretence that there was some other version of the whole battle?


Hello fellow hooligans/deniers, Well done for again pointing out the glaring shortcomings of the fabricated evidence, exposed at length elsewhere. Perhaps since the non-hooligan/deniers are clearly unwilling to show or even discuss the nature of the Silver Bullet here, for fear of damaging its commercial value, these other threads could be revived to further disparage the fabricated evidence?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,

let's fix the major errors in a recent post from Mr.Dunmunro:
Dunmunro wrote: "Maybe the fact that all 3 RN ships stated that the action ended at ~0613"
Which action ? The anti-aircraft one of PG ? PoW reports nowhere mention 6:13. :lol:
Tovey had ALREADY issued his preliminary report on May 30 (that was correct in this regard), declaring PoW retreat a couple of minutes after Hood explosion = 6:02.
He had all PoW maps and salvo plot, clearly showing the time of her retreat, but he preferred to trust W-W ships (contradictory among themselves on the same ship :shock: ) observations (e.g. W-W: 6:13 (point 10 and 12) OR after 10 minutes engagement = 5:53 +10 = 6:03 (point 20 of his official report) ?).... :lol:

Dunmunro wrote: "Your own reconstruction, extensively discussed here, shows that the range was substantially greater than 20K yds"
22 to 23K yards, much substantially shorter than 30 K Yards.... :lol:

Dunmunro wrote: "the 360d turn that he steered Suffolk through from 0542 -0550 which would have increased the range by ~15k yds (at a minimum) and for Suffolk to be at 18K yds at 0553 would have meant she was within a few thousand yards of Bismarck prior to the turn"
As per the same reconstruction, SF was at 9-10 sm from Bismarck before her turn away (between 5:35 and 5:42) (as per Ellis autobiography + Busch observation) and at 15 sm after her turn to Nord due to the "mirage". :negative:



Fortunately, no objection at all to the most intentional "error", the "Y" turret jamming, astutely inserted by Tovey among the damages received BEFORE the decision to disengage and supported by NOTHING solid he had at hand (possibly, just very partially, only by Pound speech at the War Cabinet on May 26 afaik... :shock: ).



Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:01 am, edited 11 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: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,

another intentionally wrong interpretation of what I wrote:
Wadinga wrote: "Why not accept your mistake, (actually Antonio made it first, you merely parroted it), and resolve never to use the phrase "Tovey's version went to the printers" "
I only admit my quotation of Rhys-Jones was incomplete, and I have completed it in my subsequent post already.
I have written: "I have never said Toveyìs version was wrong or right in this specific case (as I'm not interested in this Rodney's movements). Rhys-Jones was the only one who understood that it was Tovey's version that went finally to printers (and this applies to Rodney, but then, after speaking of Rodney, Rhys-Jones goes on and speaks about the Court Martial story, also implying that Tovey's version was the one accepted as well, and in this case we know that Tovey's story was an intentional alteration of facts (see Antonio's crystal clear post above), while Rhys-Jones never investigated (apparently) this aspect)."


Apart from this detail, the substance here is that Antonio did the great step forward linking the CM story to the intentional alteration of reports, thanks to his precise battle reconstruction..... and this annoys much more than Rhys-Jones statement. :lol: :lol: :lol:


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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

any of us does have his own logic, ... for me it is logic both in the military terms as well as for the political needs.

Time ago while speaking about this with a very competent person I personally rate very wise and balanced, ... was telling me that everything was clear from the military report events, ... but I was missing the political relations/evidence and approval to this occurrence, ... this was before I have found the AM 205/10 pages ( thanks to Stepehen Roskill :wink: ) ... and now the gap is filled up and everything is well demonstrated and properly documented in my opinion.

You seem to forget that there were original radio messages and reports ( Tovey May 30th, 1941 ) telling clearly a different story being received also by the Admiralty.

That required a different set of reports to be submitted and formally accepted, and that is what Adm Tovey coordinated.

Adm Tovey definition looking at what he really did, he wrote, and revealed after to Stephen Roskill I leave to you, ... since I see that many do not like the utilization of certain terms here in.

The same goes for all the others as well, ... from Ellis to Churchill.

The evidence are almost all there now, ... available, ... still having the Suffolk and Norfolk tactical plots as well as Adm Pound May 28th, 1941 letter to Adm Tovey would be very interesting indeed.

Bye Antonio
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: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:You seem to forget that there were original radio messages and reports ( Tovey May 30th, 1941 ) telling clearly a different story being received also by the Admiralty.
I don't forget it, it makes it even more illogical: Tovey's "falsified" despatch is from July 5th, but he forwarded PoW's account from June 4th to the Admiralty on July 15th. That would not be just silly that would be rather moronic.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

the evident difference anybody can easily realize between Capt Leach Official report ( plus his previous radio messages ) and Adm Tovey dispatches content describing the PoW retreat, ... with time at 06.13 and the Y turret jamming listed been occurred before the retreat of PoW ( moved in ), ... are the most easy to see evident proof of the wrong doing regarding the PoW disengagement description.

It is easy to realize that If Adm Tovey would have used by a simple " cut and paste " transcription what Capt Leach wrote on his Official report, ... most likely the Admiralty board/Sir Barnes would have not accepted it.

In this irrefutable fact easy to check and verify we can realize the Admiralty Board been in agreement about receiving this altered version of the facts, ... because the Admiralty had on his hands all previously released radio messages and reports.

Simple, logic and irrefutable.

Bye Antonio
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: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Please tell me who incited Tovey to falsify the despatch and who guaranteed that this falsification would not end his career? Who arrangened the agreement of all insiders?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

I will avoid to repeat myself, ... as I wrote above the ADM 205/10 thanking to Stephen Roskill is more than enough to explain who knew and approved all this event management up to WSC.

When I realized what they did, ... starting bottom up as I wrote many times, ... I would have never imagined that they would have left so many evidences into the Official documents and in the archives.

We are lucky to have found what we have found, ...to have found Stephen Roskill 2 books footnotes and the Adm 205/10 pages, ... to have found Capt Ellis autobiography, ... to have found Wake-Walker BBC interview, ... to have found the May 31st, 1941 letter from Adm Tovey to Adm Pound, ... and much more to come.

The scenario is very clear, ... at least it is very clear to me.

Bye Antonio
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: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

...and it is totally illogical to me. Obviously I'm really not an "average intelligent person".

Edit: ..you didn't answer my questions by the way.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I did not answer you, because I do not have an evidence demonstrating who really did it, of course I have my personal opinion about it.

Surely they did it by the simple fact that they accepted Adm Tovey intentionally altered version of the events despite the fact that they had the truth at hand in other available reports.

I have simply used my logic that apparently is very different than your one.

Lets see in the future how many readers will find all this illogical and with no fundament, ... I am really curious to verify it.

Bye Antonio
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: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Now you have got me curious. What‘s your personal opinion?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Hers Nillson,

since you like to have my personal opinion, here it is.

It cannot have been anybody else than Adm Pound, ... being his direct superior, the First Sea Lord and " the Admiralty/Their Lordships " for Adm Tovey, ... and the one that obviously managed at first the inquiry request conveyed " top down " for those 2 Officers to Adm Tovey.

The discussion was between them, ... so my personal opinion is that it has been Adm Pound.

Who provided the final direction on how to manage it ( with the Cover Up request to Adm Tovey ) to Adm Pound, ... is obviously one between Sir Alexander ( surely acting as interface at least ) or Sir W. Churchill directly ( we know very well his directions to Adm Godfrey about how to manage the propaganda news release ). Here my personal opinion is more Churchill than Alexander. ( Ref. ADM 205/10 pages ).

Bye Antonio
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: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Thank you. As I wrote before I think it‘s illogical. And it doesn’t work, because Tovey "heard no more about it".
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:06 am Hello everybody,

let's fix the major errors in a recent post from Mr.Dunmunro:
Dunmunro wrote: "Maybe the fact that all 3 RN ships stated that the action ended at ~0613"
Which action ? The anti-aircraft one of PG ? PoW reports nowhere mention 6:13. :lol:
Tovey had ALREADY issued his preliminary report on May 30 (that was correct in this regard), declaring PoW retreat a couple of minutes after Hood explosion = 6:02.
He had all PoW maps and salvo plot, clearly showing the time of her retreat, but he preferred to trust W-W ships (contradictory among themselves on the same ship :shock: ) observations (e.g. W-W: 6:13 (point 10 and 12) OR after 10 minutes engagement = 5:53 +10 = 6:03 (point 20 of his official report) ?)....


You have the log entries from all 3 RN ships. It's been discussed at length.

Dunmunro wrote: "Your own reconstruction, extensively discussed here, shows that the range was substantially greater than 20K yds"
22 to 23K yards, much substantially shorter than 30 K Yards....
The last map I saw from Antonio showed a range of ~24.5k yds, but the key fact is that the triangle of doom was clearly incorrect and W-W was right to challenge it and produce the actual ranges, according to the best data available.

Dunmunro wrote: "the 360d turn that he steered Suffolk through from 0542 -0550 which would have increased the range by ~15k yds (at a minimum) and for Suffolk to be at 18K yds at 0553 would have meant she was within a few thousand yards of Bismarck prior to the turn"
As per the same reconstruction, SF was at 9-10 sm from Bismarck before her turn away (between 5:35 and 5:42) (as per Ellis autobiography + Busch observation) and at 15 sm after her turn to Nord due to the "mirage". :negative:
Ellis biography states:
It snowed during the night, and the wind rose, About: dawn it
cleared to the southeast and southward, and we could see ice blink
to the north and west, But we still could not see any other British
ship, The Norfolk was still miles out of sight and gunrange when
the action between the Germans and the Hood and Prince of Wales
began
, Of our battleships we could see only the funnel tops and
the gun flashes.

The morning of this brief, disastrous, battle was May 24th.

When fire was opened, the Suffolk was roughly 18,000 yards
astern of the enemy, ready to "flank mark" 'our heavy shisp'
fall-of-shot,
We had set watch on the appropriate radio set and
frequency, and called the Hood repeatedly, but without response.
We were still calling the Hood when she blew up,

To have opened fire from our shadowing position, which it
was still necessary to maintain pending the outcome of the main
action, would have heen relatively ineffective, with only four
guns bearing, while it would certainly have confused the battle»
ships' spotting.
The Suffolk's tactical function of the moment was to follow
and flank mark,
As the action was so brief, the battleships' failure to
utilise our readiness to flank mark probably made no difference,.
But it was a failure, and one I think explicable by the lack of
training together as a fleet of the overburdened units of the Home
Fleet.
So Ellis doesn't support what you stated:
As per the same reconstruction, SF was at 9-10 sm from Bismarck before her turn away (between 5:35 and 5:42) (as per Ellis autobiography + Busch observation) and at 15 sm after her turn to Nord due to the "mirage
So you resort to simply lying about what Ellis actually states, since Ellis states 18K yds at 0553, and there's no room to interpret what he states any differently. So clearly Bismarck and Suffolk were either within voice hailing distance at ~0542 or Ellis's account is worthless and you and A will be a laughing stock (or worse if you falsify what Ellis stated) if you use Ellis as a reference. Ellis' memory was clearly worse than Tovey's.

Fortunately, no objection at all to the most intentional "error", the "Y" turret jamming, astutely inserted by Tovey among the damages received BEFORE the decision to disengage and supported by NOTHING solid he had at hand (possibly, just very partially, only by Pound speech at the War Cabinet on May 26 afaik..
The turret jam obviously happened before the times stated in the 3 RN ship's logs.
Locked