Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by alecsandros » Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:36 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:The Baron only uses general time frames, in this case: "It must have been around 0545.." In other words he didn't know or remember the exact times. Since Bismarck's KTB and Bismarck's top side command with the exception of the Baron was lost with the ship we can not know exactly when they first strarted spotting Hood and POW. It may have been before BS received word from PG or even before PG did. The Baron did recall that Albrecht positively identified the approaching enemy as battleships and not cruisers all along from the guns phone chatter.
... There will always be some unknown... But from the sources that we do have - Bismarck's warlog, the Baron's account and Prinz Eugen's log, the picture is pretty clear. The enemy was picked up on GHG, then Prinz Eugen, the leading ship, spotted 2 ship silloettes and smoke. Naturaly, they gradualy seen the Hood and Prince of Wales, from the masts downwards, just like the spotters from the Bismarck (as mentioned by the Baron). It took some time before the ship's were identified as capital ships - and on Prinz Eugen they were not identified at all, or perhaps only late during the battle.
Bismarck, which was trailing behind Prinz Eugen, spotted the Hood and Prince of Wales later, and the ships slowly came into view from the masts downwards. As the Baron was located in the aft section of the ship, which was lower than the forward one he only observed the British capital ships later.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by alecsandros » Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:44 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Alecsandros,

the 19 sea miles is the measure PoW is having on my map currently at 05.35. Among the 2 measured 17 sea miles distances ( Hood at 05.43 and PoW at 05.37 ) I think that Hood was the most reliable one by looking at the tracks once re-constructed precisely on a fairly detailed map.
@Antonio
Prince of Wales crow's nest was located 34meters above sea level, so a spotter could see pretty far any "suspicious objects".
If the "suspicious obhect" was Prinz Eugen's or Bismarck's tip of the main mast, it would make perfect sense, as both of those "objects" were situated 50m high.

HMS Suffolk and HMS Norfolk did not have that kind of height at all, and thus their horizon limits were closer.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:11 pm

Hello everybody,
alecsandros wrote:
Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Alecsandros,

the 19 sea miles is the measure PoW is having on my map currently at 05.35. Among the 2 measured 17 sea miles distances ( Hood at 05.43 and PoW at 05.37 ) I think that Hood was the most reliable one by looking at the tracks once re-constructed precisely on a fairly detailed map.
@Antonio
Prince of Wales crow's nest was located 34meters above sea level, so a spotter could see pretty far any "suspicious objects".
If the "suspicious obhect" was Prinz Eugen's or Bismarck's tip of the main mast, it would make perfect sense, as both of those "objects" were situated 50m high.

HMS Suffolk and HMS Norfolk did not have that kind of height at all, and thus their horizon limits were closer.
I agree with you, in fact what PoW could have done at 05.35, with a sailor on the crow nest searching the horizon, was not possible on Suffolk and Norfolk as you stated.

But for me now is easy to have confirmation about it, working on my map with good bearings, distances, accurate speed and course changes, ... still I can have an error factor of course, ... but it will be very minimal anyhow.

PoW at 05.35 could have been at 19 sea miles and declared 17 ... especially if one thinks that 17 was declared soon after by Hood at 05.43, so one of the 2 was incorrect and I have more confirmations now on Hood measures than PoW about the 17 sea miles.

Norfolk at 05.41 being at 16 sea miles from PG on bearing 276 degrees from her ( or 280 ) was not accurate.
Same was for 15 sea miles at 06.00 from Hood bearing 230 degrees from Norfolk.
Those were both incorrect evaluations.

Other intermediate measurements officially reported do not support those declarations, given Norfolk course and speed before and after.

Hood First board on Inquiry doing exactly the work I am doing with available official documents and data, determined the 18 degrees bearing of Norfolk from PoW at 05.35 and the triangular positioning of the 3 units (Hood, Bismarck and Norfolk) at 06.00 ( the Diagram B ).

It is evident that somebody on Royal Navy Admiralty on 1941 knew very well how to do his job as I was expecting to :clap: ...
... but somebody else after made "The Plot" scrambling everything on a map, used to change some declarations :oops: .

Back we are to what I have just written to Wordy, ... this is well proven now ... it is up there to be seen ... under the eyes of everybody.

Now it is just the time to realize a bit better on a map what is available on several 1941 official maps and documents.

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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by wadinga » Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:04 pm

Hello Antonio

You keep using the term measured "PoW
measured this
Hood
measured that
One of these
measurements
is wrong." What device do you think could differentiate a 34,000yd range from a 38,000yd range with any degree of accuracy in 1941? You could do it with a triangulated surveying set-up on shore using theodolites and baseline
measured
with surveying chain, but not with a vibrating 15 ft rangefinder. McMullen couldn't get a useable much shorter range from anywhere when he needed one. They just looked out the window and guessed. PoW and Hood reported the same range because they were ensuring a transmission got through by duplicating their messages, with a rough idea what the distance was.
I agree with you, in fact what PoW could have done at 05.35, with a sailor on the crow nest searching the horizon, was not possible on Suffolk and Norfolk as you stated.
Using either your old map or a guess at the new one, how far away were the witnesses aboard Suffolk who described in detail Hood's destruction? Was it more than 16 miles? Why would they be able to see the Hood at such a distance and Norfolk not see the Bismarck?

What time Bismarck's lookouts recorded Hood's appearance is a calculation of the actual visibility (not your theoretical one) divided by how dozy/incompetent/bored they were.

Also, could you remind Alecsandros that the famous yet spurious GHG "sighting" was on the wrong bearing for Hood and PoW, as you explained in the Schmalenbach quote above. There were spurious GHG sightings throughout the morning, during the action with imaginary torpedoes and half an hour after the action none of which are attributable to any real vessels, torpedoes etc. Maybe the lookouts were staring so hard down the wrong bearing from the GHG that they failed to see the real ships until after PoW and Hood had seen, identified, coded and transmitted their reports.

Wordy, your exasperation does you credit but hang in there.. I personally find the forensic analysis interesting, but I work the evidence toward a conclusion. I do not start by assuming a cover-up and ignoring inconvenient evidence and selecting only those elements of contradicting evidence which suit my case.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:09 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I will do the Suffolk evaluations after having done the the Norfolk, ... and those only after having corrected with the new reference latest found the base of my current map, ... hopefully during this week end.

But I am not in a hurry of doing it ... the truth waited for 72 years ... can wait few more months.

Many, and on both sides, did incorrect measurements and evaluations, ... this is the reason why I am trying to provide some reasonable way to read those events with some clarifications.

I am sorry if you are having some exasperation, ... but really I do not see the reasons why.

Someone made incorrect declarations, ... and produced incorrect maps ... and I think it is just normal to bring out the truth now.

Unless you still want to believe " The Plot " ...

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
Wordy
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:43 am
Location: Rotherham, England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Wordy » Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:49 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
You may have noticed, by reading backwards all the pages, that I have never used such a definition neither that I intend to reach the point to judge anybody since I wrote it already several times.

Neither I intend to realize precisely why and how they did it ( reasons, persons involved, responsibilities and exact timing ).

My only intent was to demonstrate that they did it ( and this has been already done ) ... and to determine what the reality was ... and I am in process of doing it now.

Not a hard job at the end, since everything was well preserved and available, it has been enough to have the time and knowledge to find it and to read it on the proper way.

I think that the truth should not offend nor hurt anybody, ... despite the time needed to find it at the end ... and the incorrect version written for 72 years.

Bye Antonio :D
It's kinda obvious what you are trying to prove, it's in the thread title.
wadinga wrote:Wordy, your exasperation does you credit but hang in there.. I personally find the forensic analysis interesting, but I work the evidence toward a conclusion. I do not start by assuming a cover-up and ignoring inconvenient evidence and selecting only those elements of contradicting evidence which suit my case.

All the best

wadinga
It would be interesting reading if it wasn't apparent that an opinion had been informed on page 1, evidence to the contrary ignored and so much effort spent(what appears to be hours of analysis per minute of actual combat) to prove a cover-up. Unfortunately I find this thread to be in extremely poor taste and have wanted to say for a while.
In the Highest Tradition of the Royal Navy - Captain John Leach MVO DSO

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:48 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wordy,

you are right, it is in the title !

The incorrect declarations and the realization of "The Plot" ADM 116/4352 Exhibit A had a lot to do with the Articles of War in place, ... it is very obvious.

Otherwise they were going to use the other official maps already available, the ones that were used to make the Diagram B.

In fact " The Plot " was used during the Hood Second Board of Inquiry to modify previous declarations to the First Board, ... and I can see only one reason for that to be.

So, unless you can find another reason ... I think you should agree with me and accept the reality as it is.

But you can continue to think that HMS Hood was sailing 5 sea miles north of HMS Prince of Wales like that map shows if you like it to ... it is your problem, not mine.

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 )

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Steve Crandell » Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:13 am

I think "the plot" was in error, as well as a lot of other things from that morning. I don't see any attempt to change the facts, though. I think that where testimony changed it was because someone looked at everything that was said about where they were and what was going on and said to himself "I must have been mistaken about so and so because it didn't make sense" and so changed what they said the next time.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:06 am

Steve Crandell wrote: "I don't see any attempt to change the facts, though. I think that where testimony changed it was because someone looked at everything that was said about where they were and what was going on and said to himself "I must have been mistaken about so and so because it didn't make sense" and so changed what they said the next time."
Hi Steve, we are speaking of professionals and I think that it is difficult to believe that 3 working guns become 9 working guns in another report, that a ship visible up to near the waterline becomes visible only for her upper superstructure in front of a board and that a "plot" is drawn by experts putting the Hood at 5 miles from PoW without any intentionality...... :wink:

Sorry but the cover up is evident in my opinion based on what we know today.
I think it's now important to see what Antonio Bonomi will draw on a new battle map based on the new evidences he has in his hands after Kew visit. :D

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: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:58 am

Hello everybody,

@ Steve Crandell,

you wrote :
I think "the plot" was in error, as well as a lot of other things from that morning. I don't see any attempt to change the facts, though. I think that where testimony changed it was because someone looked at everything that was said about where they were and what was going on and said to himself "I must have been mistaken about so and so because it didn't make sense" and so changed what they said the next time.
Surely “ The Plot “ ADM 116/4352 was in error on several drew tracks on it. No one in this world can say anything different about it.

YES, there were also many other errors done about many other data and maps; some that did not have a lot of importance nor consequences and some that did have important and direct immediate consequences.

We are talking about the second set of errors here, the ones related to direct Articles of War potential relation about 2 Officers : RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker and Capt. J.C. Leach.
Just to make it more clear, the errors were made on 2 precise moments/situations : the release of Adm J. Tovey dispatches on July 1941 and the HMS Hood second board of Inquiry on August 1941.

As Colin McMullen declared on his BBC interview, there have been initiatives by First Sea Lord D. Pound to Adm Tovey requesting an Inquiry/Court Martial call for the 2 above mentioned officers already at the end of May 1941.

Than in June 1941 we had the Hood First Board of Inquiry that declared Norfolk being at 11 sea miles from the enemy and 10 from Hood ( 20.000 yards ) on Diagram B.

After this event we see the errors starting, on July 5th, 1941 Adm Tovey released his dispatches : Norfolk was declared being at around 15 sea miles and not in condition to engage ( point 17 ), while PoW was declared breaking off the action and turn away from the enemy engagement at 06.13, so 13 minutes after Hood blew up ( point 19 ).

To be noted that Adm Tovey had on his hands :

3 radio messages by HMS PoW telling him a different story about the disengagement, with the timing of that event moved back by Capt Leach himself from 06.02 and 30 seconds, to 06.02. Plus he had all the PoW battle maps and gunnery report available with details and exact event timing showing the turn away occurred just before 06.02. Those documents were submitted to Adm Tovey on June 4th, 1941 together with Capt. Leach detailed narrative.

The RearAdm Commanding First cruiser squadron, so Wake-Walker, submitted report, including Capt. Phillips report for HMS Norfolk as well as Capt. Ellis report for HMS Suffolk with all related maps. In both reports one can read that after the 05.37 enemy in sight radio message from HMS PoW and before the engagement started, both cruisers did change their course keeping distance ( Norfolk at 05.41 ) or sailing away backwards ( Suffolk at 05.42 ) and that both have been surely at a shorter distance than 15 sea miles, in fact Suffolk report declared 14 sea miles enemy distance at the moment she turned away back, while Norfolk Gunnery report declared a distance of 13,5 sea miles from the enemy at a certain point in time during the battle. This report was submitted to Adm Tovey on June 5th, 1941 by RearAdm Wake-Walker.

Now can you explain me how come Adm Tovey made such evident errors on his official dispatches about this very delicate situation regarding the 2 Officers that Adm Pound was requesting him to bring in front of an inquiry just a month before ?


More, on August 1941 a Second board of Inquiry was called to further look into the details of HMS Hood loss.

For that Inquiry “ The Plot “ was made and RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker went in there and changed his previous declarations of June 1941 by moving his ship position from 10 to 15 sea miles away at 06.00 from Hood, from 20.000 to 30.000 yards, and consequently from 11 to 16 miles away from the enemy ( Bismarck ) using that map as an evidence.

This event was intended to substitute First Board Diagram B evidence of June 1941 and in fact the Norfolk evidences were changed from 10 to 15 sea miles on the Second Board summary on August 1941. Now distances were in line with Adm Tovey previous dispatches of July 1941 declarations.

Please let me underline that the document used to sustain the Norfolk distance change is in error on the majority of what has been drew and you already agreed about it, so evident it is, but it has been used to substitute the Diagram B that was done correctly using the available documentation as declared by the First Board on June 1941.

Summarizing, you wrote : “I don't see any attempt to change the facts, though. “.

I can tell you, sincerely, I do see it clearly.

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: 3974
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro » Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:11 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Dave Saxton wrote:The Baron only uses general time frames, in this case: "It must have been around 0545.." In other words he didn't know or remember the exact times. Since Bismarck's KTB and Bismarck's top side command with the exception of the Baron was lost with the ship we can not know exactly when they first strarted spotting Hood and POW. It may have been before BS received word from PG or even before PG did. The Baron did recall that Albrecht positively identified the approaching enemy as battleships and not cruisers all along from the guns phone chatter.
... There will always be some unknown... But from the sources that we do have - Bismarck's warlog, the Baron's account and Prinz Eugen's log, the picture is pretty clear. The enemy was picked up on GHG, then Prinz Eugen, the leading ship, spotted 2 ship silloettes and smoke. Naturaly, they gradualy seen the Hood and Prince of Wales, from the masts downwards, just like the spotters from the Bismarck (as mentioned by the Baron). It took some time before the ship's were identified as capital ships - and on Prinz Eugen they were not identified at all, or perhaps only late during the battle.
Bismarck, which was trailing behind Prinz Eugen, spotted the Hood and Prince of Wales later, and the ships slowly came into view from the masts downwards. As the Baron was located in the aft section of the ship, which was lower than the forward one he only observed the British capital ships later.
If "...the ships slowly came into view from the masts downwards..." then it proves that visibility was unlimited, because in less than perfect visibility, the larger parts of the ships such as the superstructures and funnels will be visible before the masts can be be resolved because the ships cannot be seen at all until they are well below the horizon.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3974
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by dunmunro » Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:20 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:

Summarizing, you wrote : “I don't see any attempt to change the facts, though. “.

I can tell you, sincerely, I do see it clearly.

Bye Antonio :D
Antonio, Tovey, Wake-Walker and Leach had to reconcile conflicting reports with differing ranges and timings, and they had to fight a war at the same time...! They didn't have the luxury of assembling all the data, from both sides, and then leisurely fitting it into a comprehensive, unerring, report. The fact that inconsistencies remained (as they almost always remain from any WW2 battle - which is why historians have jobs!) doesn't imply anything other than the fog of war.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:14 pm

Dunmunro wrote: "Tovey, Wake-Walker and Leach had to reconcile conflicting reports with differing ranges and timings and they had to fight a war at the same time! ......The fact that inconsistencies remained.........doesn't imply anything other than the fog of war.
Well I would be 100% with you, had the truth not been available already from previous documents (see e.g. Leach own messages re. PoW retreat timing and conclusions of first board of Inquiry re. Norfolk to Bismarck distance). Starting from the Tovey's dispatches till the unrealistic "plot", we can see how things were changed and embellished to build a different version of facts. This is not fog of war, it is.... a smoke screen. :wink:

That's why your (in principle) correct statements don't match with a situation where facts were already clear but suspicions had to be deflected from 2 (or I would say even 3) high officiers to allow full celebration of the victory over the German Navy most powerful warship.

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)

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by alecsandros » Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:36 pm

dunmunro wrote:If "...the ships slowly came into view from the masts downwards..." then it proves that visibility was unlimited, because in less than perfect visibility, the larger parts of the ships such as the superstructures and funnels will be visible before the masts can be be resolved because the ships cannot be seen at all until they are well below the horizon.
If it were unlimited, the Baron would have spoted Hood's tip of the main mast from 48km, at 5:45. As it was, he most likely saw if at ~ 30km or less.

Calculations for Sighting Distance (per ONI204, US Navy Range Table, Sept. 1942 - courtesy of Bill Jurens)

Hood to Bismarck= 48,290 yds (from Control Top Observation Windows to Gunnery Director atop Vormars & vice versa)
PofW to Bismarck= 48,190 yds (from PofW's Crows Nest to Bismarck's Main Director & vice versa)
PofW to PG= 47,960 yds (from PofW's Crow's Nest to PG's Observation Post atop the main director)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Byron Angel » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:03 am

Visibility can vary, Alecsandros. Momentary local variations in the weather, time of day, direction of view relative to sun, dark versus light horizon backgrounds, atmospheric mirage effects, temperature inversions, localized mists, rain squalls, even shadows of passing cloud banks can influence local visibility.

B

Post Reply