Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "Alberto Thank you for yet another performance of "he said it was 10 miles!" this is just the kind of thing Paul C was complaining about We all know that, thank you. We all know about the "Triangle of Doom". However just because it is printed does not mean it correct."

Hi Sean, I really admire your extreme attempt to justify the behaviour of a Navy Officer who said a certain distance was 10 miles one day and 15 miles another day. An officer that saw and drew Hood up to the waterline at the first Board and then plainly declared (answering an official question at the second Board) that he was able to see just her funnel, bridges and masts.
We are not speaking of 100 yards estimation, we speak about 5 miles difference and I'm sure the admiral in compass was careful to the relative distance of his ship from his flagship AND from the enemy. Anyway, in case you have a better idea where was Norfolk at 6:00 vs Hood and BS, please share with us on a map. Perhaps this will explain us all the discrepancies.......

I beg your pardon for repeating the reasons why Hood was at no more than 10 miles from Norfolk at 6:00, but to me it looks like someone refuses to accept this as a fact. However, you are right when you say it is not the printed "Triangle of Doom" that convict WW. They are the Captain and the Executive Officer of Norfolk, plus his own chief of staff (Kelburn), plus a certain Rear-Admiral himself who ALL stated 10 miles distance, albeit the question was....."irrelevant"...

Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

Sean my friend, why I have to post again what you have realized so well ?

I will not post either my old stuffs nor the new ones, as you may have realized from the other thread on CS1/BC1 tracks simply because there is a miserable person which is plagiarizing ( copy with no authorization requested nor credits given ) all my material and information released ( and not only my one, since a lot of material was stolen from this website as well ), so I will not keep on feeding the unfair guy with hardly researched stuffs. He is not even able to understand and realize completely the material so incompetent this guy is in reality.
In fact you can see into a recent publication for example photo NH 69731 and NH 69725 were PoW became Hood and Hood became PoW. We have a scoop done here from the “genius at work”, since he made PoW reversing course and sailing away on the left of Hood sinking place kept on the right on the 2 mentioned photos. This all wrongly captioned photo material has been associated with my DS battle text and a battle map stolen from here in, just a bit modified to hide the wrong doings and “enriched” with all sort of errors you can think about.
If one does not understand naval battle basic concepts, so the difference between range and bearing, cursor and turret blind angle, simply should not try to modify somebody else work.
But again, at the end what you expect from somebody not even able to realize a correct Bismarck side photo between port side and starboard side despite the stern anchor presence on one side only of the warship, from someone mirroring photos too and publish them on the same page one on top of the other, from someone not able to realize until I explained it to him that Bismarck was hit by PoW on the port side sailing south and not on the starboard side sailing north as he was showing since years.

Anyway, … back to us, … I see what you mean by being able of “ really appreciate the undefined nature of the errors”. I can tell you I do, or at least I try to do it, but I try also to be able to appreciate the modifications done intentionally in order to obtain the results desired from it.

I know perfectly now what both Suffolk and Norfolk did, communicated and reported, I know how it looks like on a real precise plot and how they were on reality at sea. So differently than you are thinking, I am able to evaluate both aspects above mentioned clearly enough already today.
But to complete my work and publish it one day, I need to find more official references and evidences compared to what I already have, the evidences that have been hidden ( I do not know if intentionally or not ) for more than 70 years.
You and Marc are right, I need to focus more on facts and evidences and just reduce my personal opinions and way to logically read the findings, … I think I got your last messages and I will try to stay more on this side of it on my shared researches.

I know about the mirage effect, but the British Admiralty evaluated on the Battle Summary Nr 5 a different capability associated with Norfolk given is position during the battle. They underlined the capability on Norfolk to see the fall of shells on Bismarck and Hood so close Norfolk was to both of them.

I know about Marco Santarini's new book on the Denmark Straits, ironically it is printed by the same editor :

http://www.fonthillmedia.com/shop/artic ... 31-5/.html

I like to take the occasion to underline once again the difference in the author conduct.
I do not know personally Marco Santarini, never talked to him and never exchanged an e-mail with him, it is an absolutely unknown person to me.
But, since Marco seems to be a correct and fair person, he mentioned my article since probably he used it for his works as reference, and correctly recognized and credited the source.

Well, here you have crystal clear the possibility to see the difference between a correct attitude of a person and the shameful conduct of another one.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

Wander outside and have a look at the skyline of Milano http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1514329 and then convince yourself you can tell which towers are closer and which further. Believe me, I worked at sea for over a dozen years and I tell you it is perfectly easy to misjudge a ship's distance by as much as 5 miles at over ten miles- but we had radar to help. Norfolk reported she was at 16 miles from Bismarck at 05:41 and would have her rangefinders (somewhat beyond their reliable ranging possibility) on that vessel- the enemy. The Bridge Staff guessed the distance to Hood at 10 miles, and later some idiot used that distance plus the bearing to Bismarck to create the "Triangle of Doom". Since WW knew Bismarck was more than 11 miles away, when the second enquiry asked, he had a more sensible figure for the distance to Hood. A figure which was confirmed by signalmen and other members of Norfolk's crew. (All under orders to maintain the conspiracy, I expect.)

Wake-Walker said at the Second Enquiry

I think you will find that from 30,000 yards the only thing you can see of the "HOOD" is probably the top of her superstructure and her funnels and bridge, and therefore it is quite impossible for me to say at what deck level it was.

and when asked if he wished to correct his sketch (months after he had made it) he said

18. These are the sketches you made for the previous committee. Is there anything that you would like to add to or remark on that?

I think I have shown too much of the hull as being visible above the horizon, and I cannot say that the picture in fig 4 had quite such a wide base.
19. Would you like to say the yellow shown in fig. 4 was not in your original sketch?

Yes, it was not in my original, as the colouring was done entirely by one Admiralty pattern red pencil!

This is someone 3 months after the event rationalizing the sketch he drew shortly after the event. Only if you have already determined he is guilty can you see something else!
If you read the Enquiry questions they are all about engineering, all about Hood. What colour was the flame, was it the torpedoes exploding or the ready use ammunition? No-one asks anything about Bismarck other than is needed to estimate angle of fall, obliquity and guesses on velocity.


You keep asking me to draw a map, but the whole point is that the positions are so vague you can't draw a precise map. Antonio has identified a single bearing and back bearing between Norfolk and the Germans but Norfolk's position is a sliding variable along this. His measured range is too secret to be exposed at this time. His cross-bearing in purple from PoW doesn't bear examination, because we have no idea where it comes from and how it was derived. If Norfolk had logged the time she passed close to Hood's sinking position or wreckage we will be in with a chance to backtrack from the wreck, otherwise we still won't know.

Antonio, I nearly got banned from a certain website when I respectfully asked for source material to back up a rendition of Bismarck's GHG system in a new drawing. I empathize with your annoyance.

All the Best

wadinga

[dunmunro]

IIRC, Phillip's drawings show Hood's waterline but his testimony states "near the waterline" but if Phillips was being so chatty with Wake-Walker as to discuss Hood's appearance, it is rather amazing that he didn't suggest that Norfolk open fire on Bismarck, if as Antonio suggests, that Norfolk was so close.


Suffolk reports and notes mirage effects:

Enemy appeared to be approaching, and in case he had reversed course at 0538 (being "turned" by the Battle Cruiser Squadron), Suffolk circled to keep northward of enemy. It was soon realised, however, that the enemy was not approaching, the appearance being due to mirage, which also explains the similar (false) appearances at 0325...

19. 0616 (B). Although the plot showed the enemy to be outside gun range, Prinz Eugen appeared at this time to be closing (now realised probably due to mirage), and at the same time Type 284 reported an echo at range 19,000 yards while trained on the Prinz Eugen.

0619 (B). Opened fire (six broadsides) using Type 284 range (initially 19,400 yards).

0623 (B). Type 284 ranges started decreasing rapidly.

0624 (B). Type 284 range 12,400 yards.
Ceased fire as there was clearly something wrong.
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09suff.htm

Note that Suffolk opens fire when there is a possibility of PE being within effective gun range, but apparently Captain Phillips perceives no such need nor any threat to his own ship, when it is claimed that he is also at a similar range and the safety of his ship is Phillips responsibility as is the responsibility for opening fire unless specifically told not to.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "This is someone 3 months after the event rationalizing the sketch he drew shortly after the event. Only if you have already determined he is guilty can you see something else!"

Hi Sean, if it was only WW to state Hood was at 10 miles and then after 3 months to change his opinion, I would simply think he was not very careful when answering questions at the first board and I would "accept" it.....
Unfortunately for him, Phillips, at the second board, did NOT "rationalise" (as you suggest) and confirmed Hood was "plainly visible from near the waterline upwards". He even confirmed he had the impression Hood was hit near the torpedo tubes (VERY low, VERY close to waterline).

Now, if all this was effect of a mirage, if distance was higher, if WW and Phillips and Luce were looking at the full hull of Hood due to this optical effect, then WW at the second board would have confirmed the drawing, not excusing himself for drawing too much of the hull at the first board and ridiculously saying he was able to see ONLY the upper bridges and the top of the funnel......

IF there was a mirage affecting Norfolk (and, honestly, I doubt very much that this was the case, as neither the German ships nor Hood and PoW were affected by any mirage, the only one was possibly the Suffolk one at 5:41, that was anyway quickly realised as a mirage), WW would have confirmed what he saw and draw for the first board.

This is why, IMHO, he WAS GUILTY and acted consequently, LYING at a board that was held for the main reason to hide the truth (not perfectly, I agree with you, but in a way good enough to divert any attention from the behaviour of the heavy cruisers for 72 years......).

Dunmunro wrote: "it is rather amazing that he (Phillips) didn't suggest that Norfolk open fire on Bismarck"

Indeed, it would be VERY interesting to know exactly what was discussed between the two of them on Norfolk compass platform when enemy was in range and the cruiser did not open fire......

Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

I know you think both enquiries should have been obsessed with how far Norfolk was from Hood but it is clear they considered it irrelevant.

Even a month after asking 700 old questions of the witnesses, none of which was "how far away were you?" to get a definitive answer they still didn't have an opinion themselves.

Here is the hypothetical question they asked of expert witness in September

Dr. G Rotter, C.B, C.B.E., D.Sc.,

65. I was 10 or 15 miles away and I saw a tremendous column of flame shoot up somewhere about the mainmast of HOOD. It was pink or red in colour with white and black streaks in it, and shaped like an inverted cone. Its direction was obviously vertical and it was very quickly surmounted by dense clouds of black smoke. The flame had a certain duration though this was very short. There is one thing I forgot to mention - that for about 3 minutes before this sheet of fire appeared, I had seen a fire burning with a very clear flame on the uppermost deck that I could see, about the same part of the ship that the explosion eventually came from. What did I see?

And of COMMANDER REGINALD FOSTER PITT MATON, R.N., O.B.E.

115. I was in a ship about 10 or 15 miles distant from the HOOD. It was quite a clear day with mirage. I saw a fire burning with a clear pinkish flame on the boat deck of the HOOD which increased in length but not in height. It was centred about the mainmast and might have spread as far aft as far aft as the after end of the boat deck and as far forward as the after funnel. I did not see much smoke with this fire and after it had been burning for 2 to 3 minutes a really terrific pillar of flame shot up from somewhere in the middle of the fire. This flame was like an inverted cone, reddish in colour with black and white streaks in it. It had a definite duration though a very short one. Immediately afterwards, the ship was enveloped in dense clouds of smoke which looked black to me. When the smoke disappeared nothing but the bows of the ship were left. I think the ship was hit just before this great explosion. What was the cause of this?

About the mirage.

254. Are you Lieutenant-Commander S.C.Howe, Royal Navy, of H.M.S. "SUFFOLK?"

255. Can you tell me the distance between the "HOOD" and the "SUFFOLK" at the time the "HOOD" blew up?

We estimated it at about eighteen miles from the plot. By subsequent plotting it was shown that it was probably nearer thirty miles. It may have been a mirage.
256. What was the effect of the mirage?

The "BISMARCK" appeared to be above the horizon the whole time.

If Bismarck was above the horizon at Suffolk's distance why wouldn't Hood be from Norfolk's distance?




Paymaster Lieutenant J.W. Balmer, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.

100. Where were you during the action?

I was on the Compass Platform of "NORFOLK" taking notes of what was going on. I cannot remember the range, but it was about fifteen miles.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

@ Wadinga:
Hi Sean, I understand your point that the question of the distance from Hood was not the key point of the first Board of Inquiry. However, as all witnesses at the first board stated clearly 10 miles, while at the second board the question was posed ONLY to WW and the the "Paymaster", the question becomes interesting...... By the way, does anybody know why a paymaster was in compass platform during action ? Is this normal in the RN ? In the Italian Navy (as well in most navies I have seen exercising) a paymaster is never in compass when at action station. The bridge of a warship in not a large wardrrom and there is no need of a paymaster there.....
In any case I believe Captain Phillips was more reliable estimating a distance at sea than....a paymaster.......don't you ?

However the contradiction of WW is irrefutable even WITHOUT listening at any witness, as he said he saw Hood hull at the first board and then at the second he said he was able to see only the upper superstructure. If there was a mirage (and in my opinion there was NOT for Norfolk) WW would have said he saw Hood full hull, above all as Captain Phillips said he was showing him the hit near the torpedo tubes..... .
This is the final proof that WW lied at the second board and for a very good reason......

Suffolk is another story, however Captain Ellis, when he saw the arranged "plot", commented he was thinking he was much closer to Bismarck then that.....

Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

in my opinion, up until we do not find their strategical and tactical maps ( from which I suppose they took the tracks to realize " The Plot " ) and merge it together with their own gunnery report ( hoping they have recorded the rangefinder measured distance all the way thru the visual contact/battle time ) we cannot really write the definitive answer to the question : at what real distance were Suffolk and Norfolk during the Denmark Strait battle contact and engagement ??? So all the way thru from 05.30 until 06.30 at least.

What we can evaluate now is the fact that the Baron wrote on his book : " ... they were between 12 to 15 sea miles and left the battlefield to Hood and PoW ... " and he was observing them carefully with some optic equipment being ordered to do so.

While from the british heavy cruiser command position Captian Ellis wrote that while at 14 sea miles he turned north at 05.42 to keep a safe distance from the enemy that appeared to have reversed course at 05.38, ... and Captain Phillips wrote that he showed a direct hit to Wake-Walker near the torpedo tubes of Hood at 05.57, very low on her hull position, so Norfolk was close enough to see that warship detail, ... and he signed to a board of inquiry that he assumed being at 10 sea miles from Hood.

So it is at least reasonable to assume that writing that both were at more than 15 sea miles and with no possibilities to join the engagement is at least a non correct statement and needs to be investigated further more.

This is exactly what I am going to do soon ... Happy 2014 to everybody ...

Bye Antonio

[Dave Saxton]

To all, be aware that it is best to avoid using inflamatory language when dicsussing these matters that we know not the full back ground or details. Words and phrases such as "liar" and "lied" and "falsifing documents" are like firery darts in the English language, especially when your talking about Officers of the Royal Navy.

[José M. Rico]

I haven't followed this thread much, but I have to agree with Dave Saxton. I realize English is not the first language of many of us, but accusing these men of being "liars" or "falsifying documents" is not the most appropriate way to try to reconstruct a 70+ year old unsolved puzzle.
Best,

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Jose' and Dave,

I agree with you and you got it right in line of principle.

But you already understood clearly that there was NO intention to offend anybody.

It was just the way it translates from one native language to english language.

It is anyway evident that :

1) A RearAdmiral provided 2 different versions of a fact, one two months after ( August ) the first deposition ( June ) to an official Royal Navy board of inquiry telling something different than first declared, drew and signed and in clear opposition to the skipper of the warship he was into that confirmed his first june declarations also in august 1941, reinforcing it too.

2) More, a Captain that on 3 radio messages about some occurrences changed 3 times the event sequence, number of guns working, timing etc etc ....

3) Than there was and Admiral that provided an incorrect timing (06.13) that was corrected officially some years after from the British Admiralty to 06.03 as it should have been at least.

4) Finally there was somebody that drew "The Plot" not placing into a map what was communicated by radio from the involved 2 warships, but a complete set of different tracks on different geographical positions and we do not know using which logic and/or references, since it was never declared.

Suggestions on the terms to be used are welcome ... the reality will not change anyway ...

The puzzle is not yet finalized, but at least the pieces are not hidden anymore ; they are on the table now and somebody needs to put it together on an acceptable way.

Here as well help is welcome ...

Bye Antonio

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

just to provide another evidence, here following you can find " The Plot " as it was showed to the Hood Second Board of Inquiry.
I have just drew on it 2 points taken from 2 official radio communication from HMS Suffolk. Than I have connected the 2 points with a GREEN line.
You can see yourself how far north is the plotted Suffolk line on the map given to the Admiralty from the originally communicated position.
I think you will NOT be surprised to know that BOTH lines are wrong. The same apply to Norfolk and of course consequently to Bismarck placed in between them.
Now you can evaluate yourself with what type of document the second board of inquiry accepted Wake-Walker change of deposition and corrected the first board of inquiry declaration of 10 sea miles (Diagram B) to the 15 sea miles of the second board. They did it just using this map tracks being an evidence .

Opinions welcome.

S&Nplot.gif (26.09 KiB) Viewed 1698 times

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

@all: I have to beg your pardon if I used any word that is not allowed, being English not my native language.

In the Italian language "lie" (bugia) is the opposite of truth (verità) and "lie" is not such a strong word.
In addition, I think that, during a war, a soldier can "lie" if this is requested for the sake of his country, and I think some of the declarations we are discussing were dictated by the war against Germany and the need to present to enemy and to public opinion an acceptable version of facts.

Therefore, as WW clearly changed his mind at the second board, saying that he was able to see only the upper superstructure of Hood (after having drawn it up to waterline at the first board ), I used the word "lie" evaluating this historical episode. I will change the statement of my last post into:

"This is the final proof that WW contradicted all other witnesses and even himself at the second board and he did it for a very good reason...... "

Sorry again,

Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Dave and Jose,

You are quite right to criticize the intemperate language being used, but from the beginning this witchunt has made up its mind about guilt, and at no point has the "benefit of the doubt" been extended. Things which are indeterminate, like position and range from a target at sea have been presented as if they were absolute values, and therefore any subsequent modification in the light of better information, indicative of deceit, conspiracy and misrepresentation instead of quite reasonable correction by those who were there.

Simply because several officers concurred at the First Enquiry that the Norfolk to Hood distance was 10 miles, it has become, for some, a fact. That is certainly not true, since no-one involved had the capability to measure it accurately. No-one even states the available technology of coincident rangefinders with their inherent error bars at such distances were used. If Norfolk had been equipped with a laser rangefinder, and Hood with a suitable reflective prism a very accurate estimate of range could have been made, but since the technology was many decades away, any range recorded was an estimate. Since Norfolk was beyond reliable visual signalling range by flag or lamp from B.C.1 it made little difference whether it was 10 or 20 miles for those aboard Norfolk.

It has been said

the question was posed ONLY to WW and the the "Paymaster", the question becomes interesting......

As anyone can check, in none of the 700 odd questions recorded, are any of the witnesses asked about distance. Even a perfunctory study of the questions on the Hood website makes this clear. Only somebody who has made up their mind beforehand can believe they have read and remembered such a question when it is demonstrably not there. The distance from Hood to Norfolk and hence the derived range from the latter to Bismarck was not just

was not the key point of the first Board of Inquiry

it was so immaterial, and was understood to be so by all involved that Wake-Walker was not embarrassed to contradict himself at the Second. For the benefit of those for whom English is not their first language I will clarify that the form of answer "I think you will find " is a subtle and playful pseudo-academic way of acknowledging that what was said at the First Enquiry was plain wrong, without coming out and saying "we guessed wrong, so what?". Note that far from being stressed by concealing this giant lie and the whole conspiracy, Wake-Walker makes a joke in the next section by responding to criticism of his sketch's colours saying it was unfair because he only had an Admiralty issue Red Pencil!

If someone here says they don't think there could have been mirage effects where Norfolk was, when experienced seamen said they saw things they couldn't have seen at the distance they said they finally concluded they were at, I am inclined to support those who were there.

And as for

The bridge of a warship in not a large wardrrom and there is no need of a paymaster there

. In Royal Navy ships when Action Stations sounds, the Bandsmen become fire control computer operators and those who are waiters serving the Officer's meals instead serve the guns with ammunition. In this case the Paymaster's record keeping skills seem to be keeping the Bridge Log. When Antonio gets to Kew, he may find the Paymaster's signature on the Log countersigned by the Captain.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Wadinga: Hi Sean, thanks for clarifying what the paymaster could do in compass platform. I was not aware, as in the Italian navy the paymaster is not on the bridge even at action station, usually being an accountant without a real ship conduct knowledge. My mistake here.

For all the other points, I think everyone has already made up his mind about the real distance of Norfolk from Hood (and consequently from Bismarck!) thanks to Antonio Bonomi reconstruction (done WITHOUT any laser rangefinder, just putting together evidences).

Just to answer your point regarding 10 or 20 miles, from 10 miles the ship is plainly visible up to near the waterline (as Capt. Phillips and Exec Officer Luce stated) , from 20 miles it's visible (if conditions are good enough...) only up to the upper superstructure. WW himself saw Hood at 10 miles at the first board and signed this declaration......and then ONLY WW changed his mind at the second: for me it is more than enough.

It make a big difference if they were 10 or 20 miles, because at 10 miles (11 from Bismarck) WW duty was to open fire, at 20 miles it was not. All evidences point to 10 miles from Hood except WW and the paymaster ONLY at the second board.... I don't think WW was joking as you suggest, as the accusations could have been VERY heavy for him.

Bye, Alberto

P.S. I have already apologized for my language.....