The Plot

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

The First Board Diagram B may contain some errors, ... I am OK with it, … I know them, … but it is correct as far as distance between Norfolk and Hood, being around 10 sea miles and from Bismarck being around 11 sea miles, of course at 06.00 that morning, just as stated.

The Plot contains many more evident errors than Diagram B, … it was done in August 1941 to substitute part of the Diagram B made on June 1941, … and it is incorrect about the distances declared of Norfolk ( around 15 sea miles ) and Suffolk both from Hood as well as from Bismarck ... and not only about the 06.00 situation.

Having the clear inputs from Norfolk, Suffolk and PoW war diaries, radio messages, R:D/F bearings and their original tracks, I can only see one reason why it was done like that on August 1941.

It is the same reason why, despite the evident mistakes it contains, it was accepted by both the Hood Second Board and by the Admiralty.

If Diagram B is virtually worthless, … than “ The Plot “ deserve an inquiry to the one that made it for the clear intention demonstrated to falsify the reality.

@ Dunmunro,

You are right, the documents modification need on 1941 was NOT to protect the public morale since they cannot see the documents being secreted until 1972.
For that purpose the Official declarations and the missing inquiry/court martial was more than enough.

The real need was to support the documentation needed to the request of decorations to “ Their Lordship “.
You may know that in order to do that the Admiralty must produce a series of documents to be submitted and they need to be signed.
It is obvious that neither Churchill, nor Adm Pound and even Adm Tovey wanted to submit a request of decoration with the original data in their hands.

Can you imagine a request of decoration for Capt J.C. Leach stating that he retreated after the first hit on board and in less than 2 minutes with the fully efficient newest Royal Navy battleship ?

Can you imagine a request of decoration for RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker stating that he delayed the action at first being at gun range, ... and after Hood exploded he retreated without helping the PoW under enemy fire being at gun range, ... and after having done this he even refused to re-engage the enemy even if invited to do so by the Admiralty ?

Can you imagine a request of decoration for Capt R.M. Ellis stating that he turned away in the opposite direction from the enemy being at gun range after the “ Enemy in sight ! “ signal by ViceAdm Holland ?

Those were the main reasons why they needed to change the reality and they did it as requested by those needs, just as I have explained you on several threads and posts.

Of course I can prove this, after my trip to London- Kew-PRO and having ALL the evidence in my hands, and my future article about this battle will demonstrate exactly this.

@ Paul Cadogan,

It was possible to put ALL the data available together very precisely.
I did it and I am NOT as good as a Royal Navy navigating officer was on 1941.
For him was going to be a very easy job, because he had access to many more data I had on January 2014 in the PRO Archives in Kew, plus everybody alive there for him to answer in case of doubts.

In order to support a 06.13 retreat for PoW ... Rowell needed to make his warship almost running into the German warships ramming them.
Just try to add 10 more minutes to PoW original battle map while still on course 280 T at 28 knots before retreating if you can.

Somebody else “ invented “ 06.13 on his written and submitted report, needed to support after Adm Tovey report to “ Their Lordship “.
But that Officer was easy to “ inventions “ of various kind with no problems apparently. He knew he was going to be “ protected “ no matter what.
It happened before, it happened in this case, and it happened again after this occurrence.
I am sure you know who I am talking about.

@ Byron Angel,

No one here wants to accuse anybody for their mistakes while doing their duty.
Even if I admire like few others the Royal Navy traditions and the Nelsonian spirit, … not ALL the Navy Officers in this world can be like Horatio Nelson.
Similarly not all Generals can be like Alexander, Annibal, Ceasar or Napoleon.
Pretending that is simply absurd.
But as I wrote several times already, for a Navy Officer of every Navy in this world there are mainly 5 type of situations after a battle, like for every Officer like I am :

1) - You did BAD and you need an inquiry for your conduct with the related consequences.
2) - You did POORLY but were mistakes and there is no need for an inquiry on your conduct.
3) - You did neither BAD nor GOOD, just average as expected.
4) - You did WELL, above average, but not deserving any special mention.
5) - You did GREAT and you surely deserve a recognition and a medal.

In this case, we are looking at a case surely deserving the first set of actions for those officers, being transformed into an action of the fifth type thru an intentional modification/alteration of several data.

This has been the shame and it is NOT acceptable, especially if you think that several errors on this battle have been incorrectly associated to an officer like ViceAdm L. Holland, courageously dead on the same action according to the best and real Nelsonian Royal Navy traditions.

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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

The First Board Diagram B may contain some errors, ... I am OK with it, … I know them, … but it is correct as far as distance between Norfolk and Hood, being around 10 sea miles and from Bismarck being around 11 sea miles, of course at 06.00 that morning, just as stated.
This small diagram has very few but important information. This diagram was always your reference, your "triangle of doom". So please tell us what are the errors you found.
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 Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

I think that " nickname " was used by Wadinga (Sean), ... surely NOT by me.

I never had any " triangle of doom ".

I just consider that evaluation very close to the reality and much, much better than " The Plot " used to try to substitute it.

Mostly it was NOT done to modify intentionally any data like " The Plot ".

There are course and bearing errors on it, ... but the correct version of it will be released with my new article, ... NOT before.

Sorry Marc, ... I have just gave up way too many info's already ... and the " plagiarist " are very willing to get more ... :wink:

But you can always tell us the errors on " The Plot " ... those are very evident and will create no problems ... lets see who is able to count ALL of them ... :wink:

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 )
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Plot

Post by pgollin »

.

When drawing up a complicated post action plot whoever does it will have to try to make a "best fit" of different ships information (especially ranges to other ships). At any time one ship might have several ranges to an enemy ship, the range finder(s) distance, the rdf/radar range and the range estimated by the gunfire (*say x thousand yards, plus/minus the estimated miss distance).

Which of those does a ship use ?

When several ships give information it is NEVER going to be a perfect geometrical fit.
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: The Plot

Post by paulcadogan »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:In order to support a 06.13 retreat for PoW ... Rowell needed to make his warship almost running into the German warships ramming them.
Just try to add 10 more minutes to PoW original battle map while still on course 280 T at 28 knots before retreating if you can.
Not really. All they would have to do is bring PoW back to 260, or even 250 or 240 after her 0604 swing back to starboard for 8 minutes then swing her round onto 160 for her retreat. After all, the ship's plot was ruined by the CP hit and the log had to be reconstructed. But then they'd need to fix the GAR and it's giveaway 8 minutes 58 seconds of centrally controlled salvos - just slip in a 1 before the 8!....18:58! Easy! But uh oh! They'd need to fix the Salvo Plot as well....

Just emphasizing the point that the "cover up" was not very good at all.....
Antonio Bonomi wrote:It was possible to put ALL the data available together very precisely.
I did it and I am NOT as good as a Royal Navy navigating officer was on 1941.
For him was going to be a very easy job, because he had access to many more data I had on January 2014 in the PRO Archives in Kew, plus everybody alive there for him to answer in case of doubts.
But Antonio...you have something he didn't: information from the German side - bearings, precise courses and course changes. You may have looked up and found the data you needed. Can you be sure it was ALL available to Pinchin when he did the tracings? Just asking...especially given Phil's comment (thanks Phil...).
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Paul Cadogan,

I know I do have a great advantage compared to all of you while discussing those maps especially after my trip to Kew - PRO.

I have done a work you have NOT done with a lot of material you do NOT have, and that is what I want to preserve until my new article will be released.

I beg you pardon about it, since it was NOT my style to hide material and information, but recent occurrences are forcing me to protect my researches more than in the past, at least until my work will be published.

I give you anyway some explanation about the way you should approach those evaluations, I do NOT want nor pretend to convince you about anything, it is just my personal suggestion and basically what I have learned about all this.

The original and official documentation, is almost entirely available, I personally think that some documents have been secreted forever or eliminated ( on 1972 ), but what has been left and de-secreted on 1972 is more than enough, after a good evaluation, to re-construct in an acceptable way everything.

That is what I did and I am still doing, ... with the help of some competent friends, ... because the challenges are very positive to double check the work done.

They had almost everything about the Germans too, remember that unless a short period during the night before, ... the HMS Suffolk, and ONLY the HMS Suffolk, ... was following them and sending regular radio reports, so ViceAdm Holland, RearAdm Wake-Walker on the Norfolk as well as the " Team " in the Admiralty operation control room ( Adm Pound, Adm Tom Phillips and some others ) were in condition to follow accurately what was happening.

In that reside a lot of the story you are going to read pretty soon.

No, they cannot modify in the way you described the tracks and documents.
If you listen to one of the PoW survivors, the Midshipman G.P. Allen that was in the Plot Room, than you will realize that nothing was lost about PoW tracks and documents.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80023587

I have the original traced tracks for Norfolk, probably traced by Pinchin himself, and they do NOT correspond to what has been done to make " The Plot ".

Pinchin surely had access to Norfolk, Suffolk and PoW original documentation, and that is exactly what I am using today.
The Prinz Eugen original documentation does NOT make a huge difference compared to what he knew about the German tracks from British documents too.
With that you cannot create " The Plot ", ... unless you want to make it " on purpose " like that.

Do you remember the PLAN 4 of PoW, where we can see the PoW battle track and 3 bearings of the Bismarck, Suffolk and Norfolk.
Well I know today why that plan was made like that, and my intuition was absolutely right before I went to Kew-PRO, it was made based on one of the original tracks/data available.
This prove that they knew everything and studied carefully everything, just like I am doing today, ... but than they realized " The Plot " and accepted it to " move away " both Norfolk and Suffolk from the Hood and mostly from the enemy, while keeping correct singular tracks but enlarging the battlefield, ... only knowing the correct bearings you realize it.
This makes " The Plot " a really ridiculous document if you know the original tracks, ... when you realize that PInchin left some of them on it too, ... plus some original PoW plan reference that really tells you how incorrect this document is.
It is really hard to accept that the Royal Navy Admiralty accepted a document like this being correct, ... they did it only because they had to do it.
0535_geometry_03.jpg
0535_geometry_03.jpg (38.59 KiB) Viewed 1541 times
Now try to check this one against " The Plot " and answer yourself after : is this available plan correctly reproduced into " The Plot " ?
The answer is easy : NO !

It is the same story about everything on this battle, this is the " poor cover-up " you are talking about Paul.
They declared a version of the facts and produced reports after the events to support/enable the version that for 73 years they sold out, and that was initially used for the recognition submission to " Their Lordship ".
But some of the original documents have been kept and de-secreted on 1972, ... and by correctly reading and using many, ... I can tell you very many of them it is possible to determine the truth like I am doing.

It is NOT an easy job to be done, ... but it can be done with a lot of time and efforts, ... and I am at the end of this work now.

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: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Do you remember the PLAN 4 of PoW, where we can see the PoW battle track and 3 bearings of the Bismarck, Suffolk and Norfolk.
Well I know today why that plan was made like that, and my intuition was absolutely right before I went to Kew-PRO, it was made based on one of the original tracks/data available.
This prove that they knew everything and studied carefully everything, just like I am doing today, ... but than they realized " The Plot " and accepted it to " move away " both Norfolk and Suffolk from the Hood and mostly from the enemy, while keeping correct singular tracks but enlarging the battlefield, ... only knowing the correct bearings you realize it.
This makes " The Plot " a really ridiculous document if you know the original tracks, ... when you realize that PInchin left some of them on it too, ... plus some original PoW plan reference that really tells you how incorrect this document is.
It is really hard to accept that the Royal Navy Admiralty accepted a document like this being correct, ... they did it only because they had to do it.
0535_geometry_03.jpg
Now try to check this one against " The Plot " and answer yourself after : is this available plan correctly reproduced into " The Plot " ?
The answer is easy : NO !



Bye Antonio :D
IIRC, the above map has some serious errors, in that Bismarck's speed from 0535 to 0553 is incorrect.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:

@ Dunmunro,

You are right, the documents modification need on 1941 was NOT to protect the public morale since they cannot see the documents being secreted until 1972.
For that purpose the Official declarations and the missing inquiry/court martial was more than enough.

1)The real need was to support the documentation needed to the request of decorations to “ Their Lordship “.
You may know that in order to do that the Admiralty must produce a series of documents to be submitted and they need to be signed.
It is obvious that neither Churchill, nor Adm Pound and even Adm Tovey wanted to submit a request of decoration with the original data in their hands.

2)Can you imagine a request of decoration for Capt J.C. Leach stating that he retreated after the first hit on board and in less than 2 minutes with the fully efficient newest Royal Navy battleship ?

3(Can you imagine a request of decoration for RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker stating that he delayed the action at first being at gun range, ... and after Hood exploded he retreated without helping the PoW under enemy fire being at gun range, ... and after having done this he even refused to re-engage the enemy even if invited to do so by the Admiralty ?

4)Can you imagine a request of decoration for Capt R.M. Ellis stating that he turned away in the opposite direction from the enemy being at gun range after the “ Enemy in sight ! “ signal by ViceAdm Holland ?

Those were the main reasons why they needed to change the reality and they did it as requested by those needs, just as I have explained you on several threads and posts.

Of course I can prove this, after my trip to London- Kew-PRO and having ALL the evidence in my hands, and my future article about this battle will demonstrate exactly this.
1) I think you're changing your rationale on the fly as the reasons for a "cover up" become harder to sustain.

2) PoW was not "fully efficient" as you well know; she was not fully trained, her main armament was known to have defects (turret problems developed during training and Vickers civilian workers were on board to assist) and one gun was known to be have a defect that would place it out of action after the first salvo. From Salvo 15 onward PoW had only 7 guns in action and from ~0559 onward her secondary armament had ceased fire altogether. PoW did not retreat after the first hit on board PoW. Leach was to be commended for bringing PoW to a degree of readiness that enabled her to accompany Hood and to hit Bismarck 3 times and then continue to shadow/search to the limit of her fuel supply. After Holland's death Leach was under the command of W-W.

3) W-W signaled that he was not in effective gun range prior to the action and from everything presented here, this seems to be correct. The Admiralty did not " invite" W-W to reengage - they asked him his intentions of doing so. This Admiralty signal has been taken as an invitation to reengage but it was probably just an Admiralty query so that they (and Tovey who had to maintain radio silence) could plan accordingly - in fact, for all we know, the Admiralty and or Tovey would have ordered W-W not to reengage if he had stated his intention to do so. In any event reengagement with an inoperative Y turret on PoW, was plainly out of the question and PoW did rengage several times after it was repaired. W-W fulfilled his mission

4) Again, I haven't seen proof of this, and Suffolk's only radar range on a target in effective gun range turned out to be erroneous.

The fragility of W-W's cruisers dictated caution as a single 20cm or 38cm hit could have left one crippled and either doomed to destruction or forced out of action, thus foiling W-W's overriding mission which was to shadow Bismarck but W-W did all that could be expected of him and Norfolk and Suffolk did as well.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

I have fixed the Bismarck speed and tracks on my 2005 article on Storia Militare.

The value of that map are the correct bearings from PoW to the other 3 ships at 05.37.

1) It is obvious that you have never read the official documentation for the recognition given them on October 1941.

2) Just listen to McMullen : “ Tell the Captain that the guns are OK ! “. It was too late ... :wink:
If we have to associate the secondary armament ceasing fire with the directors going out of action, than that was after 06.02, so well after the retreat order by Capt Leach.
Capt Leach was already alone when he ordered “ hard to port ! “ disengaging, because RearAdm Wake-Walker had already broke off turning away before he did.

3) Norfolk position was correctly established during the First Board of Inquiry on Diagram B, with attached signed drawings by everybody on board including Wake-Walker.

4) You could determine Suffolk position compared to the enemy working on her correct bearings. When I will publish my work, than you will have more evidences about her correct position.

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
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Plot

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Dunmunro:
hi Duncan, you wrote:
"Leach was to be commended for bringing PoW to a degree of readiness that enabled her to accompany Hood and to hit Bismarck 3 times and then continue to shadow/search to the limit of her fuel supply. "
I fully agree with the first part of your sentence ! I always pointed out that Leach was very good in preparing his ship, especially from gunnery viewpoint. A pity that the decorations were given on October 10, 1941 as "Reward for mastery, determination and skill in action against the German Battleship Bismarck" .... :oops:
As per the shadowing/search pursuance, for sure he couldn't just get back to port immediately after the battle !

and
"After Holland's death Leach was under the command of W-W."
You know I'm not at all a fan of Adm.Wake-Walker. IMHO he was the worse that day, however he NEVER ORDERED to Leach to disengage, he had simply already turned away, so Leach was fully responsible for the order to turn away PoW under smoke, albeit a bit justified by the behaviour of his superior. :negative:

and
"W-W signaled that he was not in effective gun range prior to the action and from everything presented here, this seems to be correct."
If 12 miles (at the "Enemy in sight") or 11 miles (at 6:00) were not an "effective" range (and I still think it was his duty to open fire anyway, even at the risk to waste ammunitions as he DID on May 27 from a larger distance), then why was he "forced" to produce a such ridiculous document as "the Plot" at the second Hood board of Inquiry to support his declaration that the distance was 15 miles ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

and finally:
"W-W fulfilled his mission"

Yes, he fulfilled his mission to get back safe at home !

1) The shadowing before the battle was done by the Suffolk only, Norfolk (due to a limited radar and to a very poor leadership) was almost always at a very safe distance from BS after the first "close" encounter. :kaput:
2) During the first phase of the battle, he did not close on the enemy (see the "outrageous arc") and did not open fire being in range (effective or not) while his comrades were dying. :kaput:
3) After Hood exploded, he totally failed to take the lead and to give orders to Leach (giving of course an example, perhaps fighting himself ?) :kaput:
4) After the battle he wrote a "long epic poem" to painfully justify to the Admiralty his refuse to re-engage, even if you seem to believe that the message sent by their Lordship to an Admiral at sea like the one received by WW was not an invitation to re-engage..... :kaput:
5) The same evening, he lost BS forever :kaput:

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

I have fixed the Bismarck speed and tracks on my 2005 article on Storia Militare.

The value of that map are the correct bearings from PoW to the other 3 ships at 05.37.

1) It is obvious that you have never read the official documentation for the recognition given them on October 1941.

2) Just listen to McMullen : “ Tell the Captain that the guns are OK ! “. It was too late ... :wink:
If we have to associate the secondary armament ceasing fire with the directors going out of action, than that was after 06.02, so well after the retreat order by Capt Leach.
Capt Leach was already alone when he ordered “ hard to port ! “ disengaging, because RearAdm Wake-Walker had already broke off turning away before he did.

3) Norfolk position was correctly established during the First Board of Inquiry on Diagram B, with attached signed drawings by everybody on board including Wake-Walker.

4) You could determine Suffolk position compared to the enemy working on her correct bearings. When I will publish my work, than you will have more evidences about her correct position.

Bye Antonio :D
How can the bearings be correct at 0537 when it cannot be reconciled with the gun bearing data at 0553?

1) What documentation?

2) I don't need Mcmullen's comments decades after the battle, when I have his GAR written immediately after the battle, and in the GAR he states that only 7 guns were in action after salvo 15, and that the 5.25in guns fired 3 salvos starting at 0557:20 and thus ending very shortly thereafter and the GAR records a hit on PoW at ~0559:10 that caused the forward 14in DCT bearing indicator to oscillate. The direction of the hit that disabled the forward 5.25in directors is speculative; If the director was OK until ~0602 then PoW would have fired 18 - 27 5.25in salvos when she only fired 3. None of the KM accounts (or film footage) mention 5.25in salvos falling near any KM ships, so more than 3 salvos is extremely unlikely.

3) Diagram B is not an accurate representation of the battle at 0553; it states on the drawing that it is not to scale!

4) Did she correctly identify Bismarck? Did she use mid bearings on Bismarck or PE or on the KM squadron? Were the bearing taken with stabilized sights?
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:@Dunmunro:
hi Duncan, you wrote:
I fully agree with the first part of your sentence ! I always pointed out that Leach was very good in preparing his ship, especially from gunnery viewpoint. A pity that the decorations were given on October 10, 1941 as "Reward for mastery, determination and skill in action against the German Battleship Bismarck" .... :oops:
As per the shadowing/search pursuance, for sure he couldn't just get back to port immediately after the battle !
It seems to me that you are angry that Leach did not allow PoW to be crippled and/or sunk on May 24 1941 - that fact that PoW mission killed Bismarck and then retreated as her firepower diminished due to 14in faults and the loss of 5.25in HADTs seems to really anger you and now you want to destroy the memory of PoW's accomplishment by accusing her captain of cowardice and Admiralty with covering it up.
and
You know I'm not at all a fan of Adm.Wake-Walker. IMHO he was the worse that day, however he NEVER ORDERED to Leach to disengage, he had simply already turned away, so Leach was fully responsible for the order to turn away PoW under smoke, albeit a bit justified by the behaviour of his superior. :negative:
Again your attitude is not that of a naval historian, but of someone with an ulterior motive, which is the common feature of conspiracy theorists.
and
If 12 miles (at the "Enemy in sight") or 11 miles (at 6:00) were not an "effective" range (and I still think it was his duty to open fire anyway, even at the risk to waste ammunitions as he DID on May 27 from a larger distance), then why was he "forced" to produce a such ridiculous document as "the Plot" at the second Hood board of Inquiry to support his declaration that the distance was 15 miles ? :lol: :lol: :lol:
W-W stated in a radio message prior to the battle that he was 16nm from Bismarck. Again where's the evidence from the KM side that Norfolk was within effective gun range on the morning of May 24th? Who said W-W was "forced" to produce evidence? He was asked to show Norfolk's plot which he did.

Yes, he fulfilled his mission to get back safe at home !
Again the accusations of cowardice with the seeming intent to destroy W-W and the RN's reputation. I fear that this whole conspiracy theory approach has nothing to do with a better historical understanding of the battle, but is driven by an ulterior motive.
1) The shadowing before the battle was done by the Suffolk only, Norfolk (due to a limited radar and to a very poor leadership) was almost always at a very safe distance from BS after the first "close" encounter. :kaput:
2) During the first phase of the battle, he did not close on the enemy (see the "outrageous arc") and did not open fire being in range (effective or not) while his comrades were dying. :kaput:
3) After Hood exploded, he totally failed to take the lead and to give orders to Leach (giving of course an example, perhaps fighting himself ?) :kaput:
4) After the battle he wrote a "long epic poem" to painfully justify to the Admiralty his refuse to re-engage, even if you seem to believe that the message sent by their Lordship to an Admiral at sea like the one received by WW was not an invitation to re-engage..... :kaput:
5) The same evening, he lost BS forever :kaput:
Norfolk and Suffolk shadowed Bismarck. Suffolk had superior radar that allowed her to shadow at a closer distance without fear of being surprised by Bismarck during periods of low visibility; however you already know this but persist in attacking W-W and implying cowardice on his part which again seems to fit the pattern of a determined conspiracy theorist with an ulterior motive.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: 3) Norfolk position was correctly established during the First Board of Inquiry on Diagram B...
But 8.5 miles (15742 m) is not the same like 16,500 yards (15088 m). 8.5 miles is more than 17,000 yards. IMHO HMS Norfolk's heading is wrong as well.
Regards

Marc

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

Re: The Plot

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Dunmunro wrote: "however you already know this but persist in attacking W-W and implying cowardice on his part which again seems to fit the pattern of a determined conspiracy theorist with an ulterior motive."
Hi Duncan,
I'm sorry you take it this way. I must admit that had Leach and WW shared your same tenacity defending their behaviour, the battle would have been very different. :lol:

However, accusing me to have an ulterior motive and not answering ALL my precise points above simply will not change the facts. The behaviour of there officer is clear now and I could anyway say the same for your ulterior motive to defend these officer.

Answering the few factual points you raise :

Norfolk was at 12 miles from BS when enemy was sighted and at 11 miles when Hood exploded. This is calculated through German and British relative bearings. If you have evidences that can deny Antonio's new battle map, please present them. Else the facts are clear.

Leach retreated after the first hit on board (the CP one, all the others are subsequent as largely demonstrated in the dedicated threads :stop: ) with an efficient battleship, especially re. guns as per McMullen (gunnery officer) statement: "everything is fine with guns". This is a fact. The only gun out of action he could be aware, was the one in A turret. Y turret guns were just temporarily not firing after 6:00 (salvo 14 and 15) as it can happen in all battleships. Even gun 2 fired at salvo 21 as per your posted extract. Therefore 9 guns have to be considered still serviceable (within few salvos) when Leach ordered the disengagement (and in any case he could not know these details as even McMullen was not aware of them.......). :oops:

Norfolk shadowing after the first encounter was just non existent. Only Suffolk was in contact with the enemy while Norfolk, after the first encounter at around 19:30 on May 23, did not see the enemy until 5:41 on May 24 ! :oops: Having a worse radar Norfolk should have been closer to BS to effectively shadow, not more far than Suffolk, don't you think so ? If you shadow, you must be in contact (radar or visual). Else you just follow the estimated (by Suffolk) enemy position, you are not shadowing.

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:14 am, edited 3 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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,
Herr Nilsson wrote:
Antonio Bonomi wrote: 3) Norfolk position was correctly established during the First Board of Inquiry on Diagram B...
But 8.5 miles (15742 m) is not the same like 16,500 yards (15088 m). 8.5 miles is more than 17,000 yards. IMHO HMS Norfolk's heading is wrong as well.
Yes, you are right Marc, in fact 16,500 yards are equal to 8,15 sea miles ( 15.087 meters ).
There is a 4,15 % error factor in there equal to 655 meters or 716 yards.

On my current map Norfolk to Hood distance at 06.00 is equal to 10,26 sea miles or 20.778 yards or 19.000 meters ( it is 10 sea miles on Diagram B ).
Norfolk to Bismarck distance at 06.00 is 11,61 sea miles, equal to 23.513 yards or 21.500 meters ( it is 11 sea miles on Diagram B ).

This is the best I did so far but can be improved ... :wink:

Surely we are far away from the 30 % distance " increase " they made with " The Plot " from 10 sea miles to 15 sea miles.

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 )
Post Reply