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.
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°.
"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. "
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)......
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests