The Plot

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

The Plot

Postby Herr Nilsson » Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:51 am

Who was Lt.Cdr. Sidney Hugh Pinchin?
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Plot

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:21 pm

@Herr Nilsson: hi Marc, his name is in the Supplement to the London Gazette (October 14, 1941) as he was decorated together with the other people involved in the sinking of BS. He was on board HMS Norfolk and he was awarded a DSC.

Here the name in the Supplement:

$115572BC9B74E535.jpg
$115572BC9B74E535.jpg (40 KiB) Viewed 4313 times

http://www.uboat.net/allies/commanders/1999.html

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Postby Herr Nilsson » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:02 pm

Ok, thank you. What was his duty on Norfolk?
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Plot

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:38 pm

May this be his signature ? :wink:

$E1324350BCB2F29.jpg
$E1324350BCB2F29.jpg (22.03 KiB) Viewed 4264 times

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Postby Herr Nilsson » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:59 pm

Yes, of course. That's why this thread is called "the plot". Earlier threads have given the impression that Wake-Walker traced "the plot" himself. Pinchin was never mentioned.
Regards

Marc

pgollin
Member
Posts: 195
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Plot

Postby pgollin » Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:08 pm

.

There were various "plots" in RN ships (depending on size/equipment).

The Fire Control Table on larger ships produced and automatic plot, and there was (rare early in the war, widespread by late war) an automatic plot as part of the AIO (Action Information Organisation/Office), in addition the Navigating Officer/team would keep a plot and the radar office might.

The norm (I have NO idea what happened in this case) was that the Navigator would produce a clean plot after a significant even from all of the above, and the gunnery department might. These were normally traces of the original with additional remarks/details added from other plots, logs, or whatever.

Some of these traces (they could be copies of copies) are in the ADM files. For instance there is a plot of POW's whole route in the Atlantic in the Denmark Straits files - which can only be a post even document.

A slightly peculiar problem is whether the ship's staff or the Admiral's staff was responsible.

.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2956
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:03 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

Yes, of course. That's why this thread is called "the plot". Earlier threads have given the impression that Wake-Walker traced "the plot" himself. Pinchin was never mentioned.


This definition, ... " The Plot " ... is going to become famous about the Denmark Strait battle.

If ever someone had the impression that it has been traced personally by RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker, that was clearly incorrect.

It has been traced/signed by Lieutenant-Commander Sidney Hugh Pinchin, Royal Navy, very likely being the HMS Norfolk navigating Officer at Denmark Strait on May 24th, 1941.

This document was made on August 12th, 1941, for the Hood second board of inquiry, it is one document attachment : ADM 116/4352 Exhibit A.

ADM_116-4352_Exhibit_A.gif
(83.49 KiB) Not downloaded yet


The intent of this document is clear by reading the Hood second board of inquiry results itself.

It has been used to move the Norfolk, from the Hood first board of inquiry results of 10 sea miles from Hood and 11 sea miles from the Bismarck, being established by the :

ADM 116/4351 Diagram B of June 7th, 1941

ADM_116-4351_Diagram_B.jpg
ADM_116-4351_Diagram_B.jpg (37.12 KiB) Viewed 4172 times


to the 15 sea miles away from Hood and consequently around 16 sea miles from the Bismarck.

In addition it has been used to define the Suffolk distance from Hood as well being around 28-30 sea miles, and consequently more than 15 sea miles from the Bismarck.

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: 1018
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Postby Herr Nilsson » Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:10 pm

And how did Wake-Walker make Pinchin to trace an incorrect plot?
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2956
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:48 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You have to check the event time table Marc, ... :wink:

It was somebody else that established in writing, between June and August 1941, at what distance Norfolk and Suffolk were when Hood exploded and during that battle.

In fact on July 5th, 1941 we have Adm Tovey declaring on his dispatches based on Wake-Walker report to him :

17. It was the intention of the Vice-Admiral Commanding, Battle Cruiser Squadron, that the Hood and Prince of Wales should engage the Bismarck, leaving the Prinz Eugen to the cruisers, but the Rear-Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron, was not aware that the battlecruiser force was so near; the Norfolk and Suffolk, therefore, shadowing from the eastward and northward respectively at a range of about 15 miles, were not in a position to engage the Prinz Eugen who was now stationed ahead of the Bismarck on a course of 240°.


from here :

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 9tovey.htm

Ltnt Cdr Pinchin only very poorly translated into a shameful map full of evident errors that "request" ... or you may want to call it "desire" or ... " order" ?

It is so evident and incorrect that one cannot believe it ... :shock:

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: 1018
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Postby Herr Nilsson » Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:12 pm

As you know my English isn't as good as yours. I always thought the distance relates to "shadowing" and not Hood's position. Do you have any evidence of such a request or order?
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 2956
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Plot

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:34 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

to respond you Marc I will use at first Paul Cadogan good point on another thread about the PoW secondary :

"But I have developed the distinct impression, given the extremely poor “covering up” that is evident in the official documentation – with all the clear indicators that some of the timings of events were wrong – that the decision, IF ANY, was eventually taken much higher up – higher than even Tovey. "


and the very good answer by Alberto Virtuani to it :

However, I disagree on one point: the cover up was not poor at all, as it lasted for 73 years (and still someone is believing and writing that PoW retreated at 6:13 while the heavy cruisers had always been out of range)...... :wink:


Of course " The Plot " is part of a unique intention to " cover up " what really happened and provide a different way to read the whole events, and it worked very well for 73 years.

Very smartly Adm Tovey wrote a generic measure related to the "shadowing" which is incorrect anyway, ... and he personally did NOT refer directly to the distance of Norfolk and Suffolk to the Hood at 06.00, ... that was changed anyway, ... since as I showed you above the need was to remove the evidence constituted by the ADM 116/4351 Diagram B which was nailing down Norfolk distance from both Hood and Bismarck as you can see yourself.

With the "excuse" of a Second board of inquiry to determine Hood explosion cause, ... this "shameful" document was produced, ... in order to increase by 5 sea miles both the distance of Norfolk from Hood as well as from Bismarck, ... enlarging the battlefield and "moving away" all warships trying to keep a good approximation of it ... and it is easy to be verified with a simple ruler.

Here the statements produced by using this shameful document by the second board of Inquiry :

Norfolk's Evidence - The plot gives Norfolk's distance from Hood as 15 miles. A mirage effect was also noticeable from her but it is not considered likely that more than a general effect could be observed. Rear-Admiral Wake-Walker's evidence is confident and clear.



Suffolk's Evidence - The plot ( Exhibit A ) shows that this ship was 28-30 miles from Hood during the action and it is obvious that little could be seen, though a mirage effect was noticeable ( see Captain R.M. Ellis evidence (series A 26 ) . We consider that Commander L.E. Porter's description ( A 15 ) gives an accurate idea of the most that was visible from Suffolk. Briefly, all he saw was gun flashes from Hood and then a very thin parallel-sided pillar of orange flame which went to about 800 or 1000 feet. This was followed by a cloud of very dark smoke which developed from the bottom of the flame.




Not to talk about the most " shameful " declaration of RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker moving his statement from 20.000 to 30.000 yards using " The Plot " too on his personal declaration to the second board on August 1941.

Minutes of a Board of Enquiry held on board HMS "DEVONSHIRE" on the 12th August 1941, to enquire fully into the circumstances attending the loss of HMS "HOOD".

Rear Admiral W.F. Wake-Walker, C.B., O.B.E., R.N.

Witness called and cautioned

1. Are you Rear Admiral W.F. Wake-Walker?

Yes.

2. Will you please tell the Board all the incidents you can remember with regard to the sinking of the "HOOD"?

I remember somebody in "NORFOLK", the Chief Yeoman of Signals I think, saying "the ‘HOOD’ is hit" and I looked at her and saw what appeared to be a big fire towards the after part of the ship; I should say it was approximately level with the mainmast.

Note: A model of "HOOD" was here produced and witness repeated his statement and pointed out the seat of the fire.

3. Will you please tell us what the range and inclination was?

I have the track charts with me ; the range was about 30,000 yards.

4. And what was the angle of inclination?

I think about forty to the right.

(Track chart was produced here by the witness - Exhibit A)

5. In what position was the "NORFOLK" then in with regard to the "HOOD"?

Well on the starboard quarter of the "HOOD". I saw this fire break out and it appeared as a sort of raised lump and of a very particular rose colour.

(Colour chart here produced)

6. Can you give us the colour of this flame?

I can describe it best as a brilliant rose colour with no yellow or white in it. I think I should mention here that I have for many years done a certain amount of sketching myself, and my method has been to make pencil notes and remember colours and then paint my pictures anything up to a week after from memory, and so therefore my memory of colours is a good deal better than the average person’s. I was struck at the time by the fact that there was no yellow in it, and it struck me as being a peculiar colour, which I had not expected. This was at the time the fire first appeared in the "HOOD".

7. At what deck level was this fire?

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. I watched this fire and it then spread forward until its length was greater than its height and after a time it died down, particularly at the forward end.


It is very interesting to read both Norfolk and Suffolk captain comments about this document/occurrence and the related distance evaluations.

I invite you to do it ... :wink:

Of course I do NOT have any written evidence of these orders being given by whom and when : the " cover up " was not done so perfectly as you can see, but they were not idiots.

What I have and I am presenting you are the evidence of what has been done as a direct consequence of the decisions taken in that direction removing the reasons for an inquiry to be called against RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker, Capt. J.C. Leach and Capt. R.M. Ellis and enabling the medals delivered to all of them on October 1941.

It was done more or less like they did for the HMS Glorious occurrence, ... and for the loss of HMS Barham, ... just to give you a couple of examples, ... were similar things occurred and for the British population morale during the war and related propaganda reasons, ... they modified and " covered up " everything as much as possible.

After Bismarck was sunk and a decision was needed about what happened at Denmark Strait that morning, ... Churchill decided NOT to proceed on forcing Adm Pound to call the inquiry/court martial for those officers.

The Admiralty itself probably directed Adm Tovey to submit all documents in a way that they were going to support the story that was written on Adm Tovey dispatches, enabling the medals and the recognition and removing ALL the potential reasons for an inquiry.

This is what we can see very evidently on many documents ... omissions, ... modifications, ... " innocent errors ", ... all sorts of things you can think about in favor of the Adm Tovey incorrect battle version written on his dispatches.

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: 1018
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Plot

Postby Herr Nilsson » Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:48 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:... since as I showed you above the need was to remove the evidence constituted by the ADM 116/4351 Diagram B which was nailing down Norfolk distance from both Hood and Bismarck as you can see yourself


This small diagram has two big mistakes. It's virtually worthless.
Regards

Marc

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Plot

Postby dunmunro » Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:05 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:H
Of course I do NOT have any written evidence of these orders being given by whom and when : the " cover up " was not done so perfectly as you can see, but they were not idiots.

What I have and I am presenting you are the evidence of what has been done as a direct consequence of the decisions taken in that direction removing the reasons for an inquiry to be called against RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker, Capt. J.C. Leach and Capt. R.M. Ellis and enabling the medals delivered to all of them on October 1941.

It was done more or less like they did for the HMS Glorious occurrence, ... and for the loss of HMS Barham, ... just to give you a couple of examples, ... were similar things occurred and for the British population morale during the war and related propaganda reasons, ... they modified and " covered up " everything as much as possible.

After Bismarck was sunk and a decision was needed about what happened at Denmark Strait that morning, ... Churchill decided NOT to proceed on forcing Adm Pound to call the inquiry/court martial for those officers.

The Admiralty itself probably directed Adm Tovey to submit all documents in a way that they were going to support the story that was written on Adm Tovey dispatches, enabling the medals and the recognition and removing ALL the potential reasons for an inquiry.

This is what we can see very evidently on many documents ... omissions, ... modifications, ... " innocent errors ", ... all sorts of things you can think about in favor of the Adm Tovey incorrect battle version written on his dispatches.

Bye Antonio :D


The Hood inquiries, and indeed any Admiralty Inquiry was classified and restricted from public view...so there's no need to falsify evidence to protect public morale, and certainly no need to falsify evidence to justify NOT having an inquiry. You should stick to what you can prove.

User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: The Plot

Postby paulcadogan » Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:09 am

A couple of questions:

How was a plot such as the one in question drawn?

You have two ships - Suffolk & Norfolk - each with their own separately plotted courses. You have bearings and range estimates that can be taken when in sight of one another - if they were. You have their plot positions based on separate navigation fixes or dead reckoning each of which may be inaccurate to some degree. You have BC1's course and the German ship's course, which they have bearings and an estimate of distances.

How do you put all that together on one plot accurately? No wonder there are two possible courses for the Germans and a very inaccurate "rough estimate" of BC1's course! I suspect Mr. Pinchin was having a very hard time!

And my other question: If "the Plot" was drawn to support 15 miles, despite Diagram B's existence....why wasn't the Rowell map redrawn to support 0613???? :think:

The reason why I said the alleged "cover up" was poorly done - is that once the documents and maps are examined, the discrepancies are there for anyone who is observant enough to see them. Many researchers over the years simply did not care enough to pick up on it. So in so many publications we have 0613 in the text alongside a track chart showing 0602.... :shock:
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: The Plot

Postby Byron Angel » Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:40 am

..... HMS Lion opened fire at Jutland with 20,000 yards on the gun sights, whereas the actual range to Derfflinger was only about 16,000 yards. Was it a conspiracy or just a mistake?

B


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests