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 »

RF wrote:
Alberto Virtuani wrote:
IMHO to stop a dangerous commerce raider was in the vital interests of Britain, well worth the risk to have PoW damaged.
What isn't considered is the risk of POW being sunk.....
... then PoW should have been kept out of the battle, better serve as a training ship. Or floating museum...
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: [His ship was smaller but very well protected and she could have sustained some more serious damage before turning away. Any serious damage inflicted to BS could not be repaired and would have doomed her.
POW was indeed well protected, but not invulnerable. The concept of allowing a ship to take serious damage is a dangerous one because once the damage accumulates you start losing control of the situation, it is more difficult to extricate yourself from that situation. ''Moderate damage'' can quickly lead to total loss. Continuing engagement is a risk which however calculated is a gamble because of the uncertainties outside your control.

As you initimate the same is true of Bismarck, the risk of even the slightest damage threatens total loss for that ship. But Bismarck was not in the same situation as the Graf Spee in Montevideo, which was truly cut off from home. Bismarck had access to French and Spanish Atlantic ports, just as POW could and eventually did go to Iceland. Even with serious above waterline damage and proper co-ordination of KM and Luftwatte forces Bismarck should be able to make it to France. Below waterline damage is another matter, but even here it is difficult to stop Bismarck; it took an unlikely and fortuitous hit on the rudder to stop Bismarck which was due to aircraft and not shellfire.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: PoW was not going to sink after having had some other serious hits, she was close to friendly harbour and well protected by many other RN units. Much different was the result of other 3 or 4 serious hits on Bismarck on that situation, it was going to be the end for her and for sure. Alone, seriously damaged, and with all RN looking for her up there.
I think this is the essence of where we disagree. As I said in my previous post POW was indeed well protected but not invulnerable. You have established that when Hood blew up POW disengaged some 90 seconds later. In that time Bismarck attained four hits, none of them really serious..... However continue the action for another 15 or 20 minutes, with no relief for POW from any other RN ships - with Bismarck's gunnery intact it is likely that a much greater number of hits would be sustained. We don't historically know the actual effect of sustained 15 inch shellfire on a KGV because there was no event in WW2 where it happened, but I would suggest that the KGV's would not have stood up to a battering as well as Bismarck later did. Factor in shellfire and torpedoes from Prinz Eugen and the sinking, either then or later on, of POW in my view is a possibility or even a liklihood.

With respect to Bismarck getting to France, I don't think it would as difficult as you suggest. It is catching Bismarck that is the problem, the RN as you infer has many ships with which to do it but they are scattered and need to be co-ordinated and that requires contininous tracking. In reality Bismarck all but made it to France, it was only an unlikely hit from an obsolete weapon that nailed the target for destruction.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

alecsandros wrote:
... then PoW should have been kept out of the battle, better serve as a training ship. Or floating museum...
No, POW was part of a squadron whose attainable objective was destruction of Bismarck. The RN doctrine of tackling a Bismarck was on the basis of two on one and that was the proper role of POW.

I think you are treating this as a all or nothing situation, that either POW is brilliant or useless. POW was neither, it falls inbetween, and had a role to play in combination with other ships. Hood blew up, a circumstance that Leach couldn't prevent, he was left in a situation that was not expected and he had to react to it.
Of Hood and POW I would say that Hood posed the greatest risk in tackling Bismarck. My view is that where Holland went wrong was in not having POW as his flag and lead ship, to draw Bismarck's fire from Hood. That way in my view the battle should have been won, not least because both ships would open fire on the right target.
I might add that if I had been Holland I would also have sent a direct order to Wake-Walker for Norfolk to close Bismarck and attack its starboard quarter.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
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 »

RF wrote: No, POW was part of a squadron whose attainable objective was destruction of Bismarck. The RN doctrine of tackling a Bismarck was on the basis of two on one and that was the proper role of POW.
Were and when was this decided ?

The Prince of Wales was the most modern British battleship and amongst the most powerfull battleships in the world.

Her job was to stop Bismarck from causing carnage amongst the convoys.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Byron Angel »

alecsandros wrote:
Byron Angel wrote:The answer is simple: The Br CAs did not engage because W/W was operating upon the principle that maintaining shadow contact with Bismarck was of overriding importance to the operation
To shadow who and why ?

The engagement between PoW, Hood, BS and PE, would be a decisive one. Nobody knew how it would turn out, but, regardless, the battle was fought in order to destroy the Bismarck, so "keeping out of the battle in order to shadow the enemy" looks more like defeatism.

.... No, it was good tactical sense and prudence on W/W's part. The mission was to destroy Bismarck. Even with Hood and PoW on the scene, it remained W/W's job to maintain contact with Bismarck in case Hood and PoW failed in their effort, which was in fact what occurred. There was a reason why almost the entire Home Fleet had been put to sea to track down Bismarck.

B
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Byron Angel »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Byron, I can't agree: the mission of the British forces was not an exercise at sea to practice shadowing techniques against a potential enemy.....
..... You are absolutely correct. It was part of a full-on operation to chase down a very dangerous opponent at sea - an opponent considered so dangerous that practically the entire Home Fleet had been put to sea to hunt it down. W/W's task was to "bell the cat".

Once the cruisers had shadowed BS (for better or worse during the night from 23 to 24....), and after the enemy report from PoW at 5:37, for ALL ships involved the clear duty was to attack and possibly sink, stop or at least damage BS and PG. To stay out of a battle as a spectator is only acceptable if explicitly ordered so, however I'm not aware of any order to WW exempting him from fighting....
..... I have never commanded a warship at sea, but based upon my readings of naval history over the years, I think you have it the wrong way round. So long as Holland was alive, it was he who was in tactical command of the battle and it was he would dictate the manner in which the battle would be fought and by whom. The obligation of subordinate commanders in such a situation is to be PREPARED to fight, but they did not do so willy-nilly on their own initiative without tactical orders. I welcome any correction, if I am indeed wrong on this point.

Any heavy hit from BS to Norfolk was very unlikely due to the presence of the British battleships (Lutjens would not have turned the 15" guns to Norfolk until having sunk PoW and Hood) and any 8" hit on BS or PG from Norfolk could have been very valuable to achieve the above mission objectives.
..... You're probably correct about Bismarck directing her 15in battery upon the British capital ships, so long as they were in the field. That leaves Prinz Eugen and perhaps Bismarck's 5.9 battery. A hit from either source, destroying W/W's best radar or reducing his speed by even a few knots, would have prevented the carrying out of his shadowing mission. Fighting at 15-20k yards would have represented a big risk. And you ignore the potential situation of W/W being caught within 20k yards from Bismarck when PoW flees. Once committed to a fight, W/W would not have been able to instantaneously disappear from German view.

And, once again, yes - we all know that Bismarck eluded W/W's cruisers the following night. BUT W/W DID NOT HAVE PSYCHIC FOREKNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS TO COME IN THE FUTURE. You need to keep in mind that after the withdrawal of PoW, W/W's cruisers were the only ships in the entire RN who knew the position of Bismarck that night - which was, of course, exactly what W/W was supposed to be doing there in the first place. This was. at the end of the day, a matter of tactical priorities.

I suspect that we will never agree on this point.


B
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 »

Byron Angel wrote: .... No, it was good tactical sense and prudence on W/W's part. The mission was to destroy Bismarck. Even with Hood and PoW on the scene, it remained W/W's job to maintain contact with Bismarck in case Hood and PoW failed in their effort, which was in fact what occurred. There was a reason why almost the entire Home Fleet had been put to sea to track down Bismarck.
B
... According to Adm Tovey's dispatch, the initial deployment of forces to catch the Bismark was done to counter all possible 4 routes of the German raiders. Hence the large numbers of ships involved (cruisers, destroyers, battleships)

AFTER the loss of the Hood and withdrawal of the PRince of WAles were even more forces ordered to converge on the Bismarck: Rodney, Force H, etc...

Wake-Walker should have engaged there, in order to help destroying the raiders. As it was, he was only watching the show... And a bloody show it was !
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Byron Angel wrote: "..... I have never commanded a warship at sea, but based upon my readings of naval history over the years, I think you have it the wrong way round. So long as Holland was alive, it was he who was in tactical command of the battle and it was he would dictate the manner in which the battle would be fought and by whom. The obligation of subordinate commanders in such a situation is to be PREPARED to fight, but they did not do so willy-nilly on their own initiative without tactical orders. I welcome any correction, if I am indeed wrong on this point."
I have never commanded a warship as well..... and luckily I never had the enormous responsibility to command a warship in wartime.
However, having been a Navy officer, I can say that, even when Holland was alive, the duty of any Captain or Flag Officer being able to join action was to engage the enemy except if explicitly ordered otherwise by Holland himself.
No explicit order was needed to WW for opening fire and I would even say that such an order issued by Holland would have been almost an offence for a flag officer. Holland possibly judged (wrongly) that WW was going to act in the best way to effectively join the action. In addition, at 6:00, without Holland anymore, it was WW duty to relieve him in command taking over his mission to sink BS. :oops:
Byron Angel wrote: "A hit from either source, destroying W/W's best radar or reducing his speed by even a few knots, would have prevented the carrying out of his shadowing mission"
Well, again if to stop a commerce raider you need to loose your radar (and not the best one anyway), I think it's a good bargain ! Any damage to BS could have been decisive and even worse any damage to PG would have posed Lutjens a very difficult problem: abandon PG at her destiny or risk BS to protect PG.
Byron Angel wrote: "I suspect that we will never agree on this point."
Yes, me too, but confronting different opinions from smart people is what makes this discussion really interesting ! :clap:

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:58 pm, edited 2 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: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Alecsandros wrote: "Wake-Walker should have engaged there, in order to help destroying the raiders. As it was, he was only watching the show... And a bloody show it was !"
:clap: nothing to add !

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: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ RF,

you wrote :
I think this is the essence of where we disagree. As I said in my previous post POW was indeed well protected but not invulnerable. You have established that when Hood blew up POW disengaged some 90 seconds later. In that time Bismarck attained four hits, none of them really serious..... However continue the action for another 15 or 20 minutes, with no relief for POW from any other RN ships - with Bismarck's gunnery intact it is likely that a much greater number of hits would be sustained. We don't historically know the actual effect of sustained 15 inch shellfire on a KGV because there was no event in WW2 where it happened, but I would suggest that the KGV's would not have stood up to a battering as well as Bismarck later did. Factor in shellfire and torpedoes from Prinz Eugen and the sinking, either then or later on, of POW in my view is a possibility or even a liklihood.

With respect to Bismarck getting to France, I don't think it would as difficult as you suggest. It is catching Bismarck that is the problem, the RN as you infer has many ships with which to do it but they are scattered and need to be co-ordinated and that requires contininous tracking. In reality Bismarck all but made it to France, it was only an unlikely hit from an obsolete weapon that nailed the target for destruction.
I see what you mean and you are right, we disagree on that point. In my personal opinion, PoW should have remained under Bismarck gunfire while continue to hit her as she was doing at least up until the moment that from PoW they were sure to have inflicted such a punishement that Bismarck was not going to be able to conduct anymore a raider mission against convoys, and this at any cost for PoW.

We have listen to McMullen declarations on BBC/IWM, he was fine and was keep on straddling the enemy, that hitting was going to continue if Capt Leach had not turned away.

PoW mission was to stop the Bismarck. Bismarck mission was to try to escape with less damage as possible.

By retreating the way he did after only 2 hits received on board ( not 4 nor 7 as the others were received after the disengagement order ) Capt Leach aborted his mission, despite his orders and the fact that he was engaged in battle, and retreated in front of an enemy that was his duty to try to destroy to the utmost of his possibility, while he still had the majority of them ( guns and ship ) almost intact.

RearAdm Wake-Walker should have NOT allowed him to do it and should have engaged promptly with Norfolk to compensate the situation, waiting for Suffolk to re-create a minimum superiority.

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
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

alecsandros wrote:
RF wrote: No, POW was part of a squadron whose attainable objective was destruction of Bismarck. The RN doctrine of tackling a Bismarck was on the basis of two on one and that was the proper role of POW.
Were and when was this decided ?
I believe by Admiral Tovey and his staff when they selected the forces to cover the four entrances open to the Germans to enter the Atlantic; four capital ships available that could match Bismarck for speed and able to force an action, being Hood/POW and KGV/Repulse. Tovey then substituted Rodney for Repulse for the final action, even with Bismarck unable to steer and moving at walking pace KGV was not allowed to engage Bismarck on its own.
The Prince of Wales was the most modern British battleship and amongst the most powerfull battleships in the world.
To quote Captain Patrick Dove in his observation to Captain Langsdorf's testimony of the gunnery strength of Graf Spee - on paper.
Her job was to stop Bismarck from causing carnage amongst the convoys.
As part of the squadron led by Hood the job was to intercept if Bismarck used the passages they were covering. Yes, that remit includes stopping Bismarck from attacking convoys but in so doing POW wasn't specifically expected to do the job completely on its own.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: I have never commanded a warship as well..... and luckily I never had the enormous responsibility to command a warship in wartime.
Neither have I. However I would like to believe that I would be capable of doing so and discharging my duties properly and successfully.
the duty of any Captain or Flag Officer being able to join action was to engage the enemy except if explicitly ordered otherwise
Yes, the doctrine of Horatio Nelson, however in so engaging there has to be an achievable satisfactory outcome otherwise the concept is defeated. Does it mean engaging if in doing so you could jeopardise creating a force that later on would have a better chance of destroying that enemy? Engage singly and lose your ships one by one, or use time to create a force that can do the job for less loss?
Very loosely I can see a parallel here with the concept of ''big wings'' used by Leigh-Mallory during the Battle of Britain, which initially was heavily criticised by Park because it was his airfields that were getting pounded while the ''big wings'' were spending time forming up instead of going straight for the enemy. But the ''big wings' tilted the balance when the attack switched to London and they could attack in detail as a concentrated force instead of single squadrons.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: "By retreating the way he did after only 2 hits received on board ( not 4 nor 7 as the others were received after the disengagement order ) Capt Leach aborted his mission, despite his orders and the fact that he was engaged in battle, and retreated in front of an enemy that was his duty to try to destroy to the utmost of his possibility, while he still had the majority of them ( guns and ship ) almost intact. "
:clap:
Capt.Leach open the door to BS into Atlantic: Tovey was some 24 hours away (an eternity at sea), the risk to loose BS was too high (and indeed it happened... :oops: ): therefore NO way to say that PoW should be "preserved" ( :lol: )for fighting another day. Which day ? THE DAY was May 24, when Adm.Holland was able (there were not many others capable to do so) to force a very reluctant enemy (the German Navy during the whole WWII) to accept battle !
Antonio Bonomi wrote: "RearAdm Wake-Walker should have NOT allowed him to do it and should have engaged promptly with Norfolk to compensate the situation, waiting for Suffolk to re-create a minimum superiority."
:clap:
I would just add that he should have already engaged BEFORE Hood exploded.... :oops:

Both Leach and Wake Walker were very lucky that BS was crippled by the Ark Royal swordfish torpedo.....Had that single torpedo missed, they would not have escaped a well due Inquiry (and most probably a Court Martial).

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
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Capt.Leach open the door to BS into Atlantic: Tovey was some 24 hours away (an eternity at sea), the risk to loose BS was too high (and indeed it happened... :oops: ): therefore NO way to say that PoW should be "preserved" ( :lol: )for fighting another day. Which day ? THE DAY was May 24, when Adm.Holland was able (there were not many others capable to do so) to force a very reluctant enemy (the German Navy during the whole WWII) to accept battle !
Bye, Alberto
Alberto I think would make a very good political party machine politician - because he has the art of agenda setting and expounding lines of argument and cliches that excludes any consideration of whatever other arguments are advanced. Just push the party line and ignore what the opposition says.

However if we can escape the tunnel vision and see the whole picture the risks of treating POW as expendable set against possible outcomes including that of Bismarck escaping without substantive damage can be considered and a judgement made. The party line here is that Bismarck is let off the proverbial hook and was and did escape contact. Yes that is a point of view. What is not considered is the scenario of the same thing happening after POW is sunk or put out of action for months, so only KGV itself can bring Bismarck to action without the risk of blowing up that is there with Repulse, Renown etc.

The weakness of the party line is the apparent scapegoating of two individuals for timidity. Well I can cite another perhaps more apparent example of a similar action in another battle between the RN and the German Navy, another disaster for the RN - at the Battle of Corenel in WW1. Little critical evaluation of this battle is given, but consider the role of HMS Canopus immediately after Admiral Craddock was killed and Monmouth and Good Hope were sunk. This old battleship had heavier guns than either of the two heavy cruisers and to use the thinking of Alberto and others on this thread would it not be the duty of Canopus captain to engage Scharnhorst and Gneisenau to the death? In this case I could say yes because Canopus in the grand scheme of things wasn't a key RN ship and Sturdee was sent out to deal with the problem anyway. However Canopus broke away from the action and made it to the Falklands and the captain wasn't censured for his actions.
POW was different to Canopus because it was a key RN battleship and not expendable and this is the weakness of what Byron has described as the use of selective lines of argument.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply