The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Alberto yes that was my point, it no use discussing theoretical possibilities, there are so many ponderables we must work with what actually happened. Ifs and maybe's do us no good, as my old grandad used to say if his granny had've had wheels she might have been a bicycle!

Again I agree one of Y turrets guns came back into action for the local control firings but at the time of disengagement PoW had 7 guns in action and her shooting was seen to be falling off.

I think we have to say that at the moment there is no official record of a court martial, but that is not to say there is not some out there. The main question is if proceedings were started would Leach, on gathering the evidence, be found culpable?

After Hood's loss was his gunnery suffering and losing its effectiveness? If his shooting was becoming less effective what effectively could have been achieved by continuing? Was he hitting the enemy as hard as the enemy was hitting him? Had his ship suffered from gunnery defects prior to the battle and during it? On disengaging did his ship disengage and head for port or did he join the shadowing force to repair damage and await reinforcements? Did he re engage Bismarck later? Once Bismarck was lost did he head for home or continue to search actively for the enemy?

For cowardice the person must surely 'run for the hills and not endanger himself again'? Did Leach do this or did he put his ship in harms way again? The question may be not whether there was a court martial looked at but whether there was a case to answer? There is your debate.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Cag wrote: "PoW had 7 guns in action and her shooting was seen to be falling off. "

Hi Mr.Cag,
again, please if you want to re-discuss, use the original thread (after having read it)...... According to Duncan's salvo plot the only guns not firing their very last salvo were A1 (for much time) and Y3 (temporarily)....therefore 8 guns were in action at last salvo, 9 presumably would be soon. At disengagement time you are right, also Y2 was temporarily out of action but McMullen did NOT see his shooting falling in any way when he sent the boy down
I strongly doubt Leach was able to look at Hood explosion, steer his ship, recover from the CP hit and still precisely count the Y turret shots or misfires aft.....
He was honest enough NOT to mention the actual loss of output as a reason for the disengagement, he just said he was worried that this circumstance could likely happen.......I don't see why we should imagine anything different.....

you wrote: "there is no official record of a court martial"

If you want a letter signed by WSC to Pound asking for it, you are right.
There are several evidences that the Court was asked by WSC and Pound. Sir Henry Leach was believing the Court Martial had been asked for his father.


I'm not saying that Leach would have been found culpable of cowardice (your word, I would have used: "not being aggressive enough") by a Court Martial: even Troubridge was not condemned..... However Troubridge career was logically over....


Bye, Alberto

[RF]

Hello everybody,
@ Wadinga,
you wrote :

" The reports I read in the National Archives signed by Wake-Walker, Ellis and Tovey give no indication they are falsified. "

This only means that you are not using the tons of post's you have here in since many years with the many Official document examples we have provided demonstrating the intentional falsification.
I suggest you to use our Storia Militare article of February 2017, the number 281, and you will have a good summary to refer to.
Bye Antonio

''Intentional falsification'' is purely a conclusion based on subjective opinion and subjective interpretation of the events in question.

That opinion and interpretation might be wrong. There is no PROOF that falsification was the motive behind these reports.

[RF]

of cowardice (your word, I would have used: "not being aggressive enough") by a Court Martial: even Troubridge was not condemned..... However Troubridge career was logically over....
Bye, Alberto

Leach's career was also almost over - killed in action 10 December 1941 by a more nastier enemy than Bismarck.....

[Alberto Virtuani]

RF wrote: "There is no PROOF that falsification was the motive behind these reports."

Hi RF,
I agree only that we miss a signed "confession" of the falsification.....

However, it is extremely difficult to believe that all the discussed evidences were just "innocent errors". Just a couple of well known and at long discussed examples:
1) Pinchin's Plot intentionally enlarged battlefield (he avoided to use the taken bearings from Norfolk to Suffolk he himself traced on it leaving them "lost" in the middle of sea.....
2) Tovey despatches intentionally incorrect point 19 (after his own quite different previous report on May 30) and the "smartly" (to use a nice word) written point 17, to give the impression that the cruisers were out of range before the battle, while referring to another timing....

There are many more, as you know very well, all going in one direction: justify/embellish the facts with wrong/incomplete information or contradicting the declarations previously released. IMO this is more than enough to say that an intentional "sugar-coating" did happen, modifying previous declarations, hiding the more embarrassing facts and allowing the final celebration. I think it was the most convenient decision, during wartime.


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

As you may recall I now have Wills' book on Leach, the book which apparently kick-started this witch hunt.

And guess what? The only biographer of Capt Leach, an enthusiastic American amateur historian dedicated to documenting every aspect of his subject's life, with access to private letters, Leach's confidential personnel report, a host of other sources, an ex RN man to do his UK research, access to the archives of the Royal Naval College Britannia, and who had Sir Henry Leach personally review every single page has one source and one source only for the Court Martial story.......................... Ludovic Kennedy!

There are several evidences that the Court was asked by WSC and Pound.

No there aren't.

Sadly it would appear that Sir Henry Leach did believe this uncorroborated story about his father, and if I had become First Sea Lord as he did, I would have put some minions on the job of investigating it, and bringing the truth out into the open. Maybe he was too busy running the Royal Navy and the Falklands War.

Unless of course he discovered his father was a coward, had falsified evidence in collusion with every other officer involved up to and including the First Sea Lord.............and so reburied/ destroyed evidence. And then silenced/cashiered/shot his minions.

No, I don't think so.

In Captain's Leach's letter of thanks (16th Oct 1941) to the Prime Minister on p118 of Will's book, after thanking him for his and his officer's awards he continues "I believe big strides have been made in the reliability of the main armament machinery since you were onboard. I hope in the near future to have an opportunity of confirming this view."

Still keeping up the story of malfunctioning guns, what a devious fellow! So matey with the man who once accused him of the "worst thing since Troubridge".

As we have discussed before, regarding Tarrant's book, the photo caption is written by the author, the photo ownership attribution is Sir Henry Leach.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "Sadly it would appear that Sir Henry Leach did believe this uncorroborated story about his father....Unless of course he discovered his father was a coward......Maybe he was too busy running the Royal Navy and the Falklands War.,"

Hi Sean,
if he believed this story, it's quite surprising that YOU don't.....

The former First Sea Lord reviewed, with Wills, "page by page", his book and neither suggested him to remove your supposed "unsupported" story, nor had had anything to say (years before) about Tarrant's story, plainly written under the photo he kindly provided him.... Still you don't accept it.

He spoke to his father in Singapore, don't forget it, and this was the first time he had the opportunity "to discuss the battle with the Bismarck" (pag.127 of Wills book)....Wills had access to private letters and to confidential reports never released by the RN (pag.8 of Wills), NOT only to L.Kennedy......
FYI, Sir Henry was not involved in the Falklands anymore, neither when Tarrant published his book nor when Wills did. He had retired in 1982. He had all the time to concentrate to vindicate his father's memory. Was possibly also the mind of this "poor old sailor" failing, according to you ?


The Court Martial story is not contradicted and even "blessed" by the most authoritative person, Sir Henry Leach, as apparently it was considered a well established and consolidated fact in the Royal Navy. No need to be sad about this.


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto

Wills had access to private letters and to confidential reports never released by the RN (pag.8 of Wills), NOT only to L.Kennedy......

But he quotes Kennedy because there was obviously nothing else in all that other material.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Wadinga wrote: "But he quotes Kennedy.... "

Hi Sean,
Not at all. I would attribute this gross blunder of you to an "innocent error", for the last time now (after the "Falkland duties excuse" in your previous post), but please check what you say before posting blunders in bold....

Wills does NOT "quote" Kennedy at all, he quotes Grenfell at page 89 (about the ridiculous excuses of a certain Rear Adm. Wake-Walker not to re-engage.... ), but the Court Martial story is Wills account only, reviewed "page by page" with Henry Leach.

The closest quote from Kennedy (page 91) is referred to the "Richtofen Circus" comparison for the Swordfishes attacking Bismarck....


The Court Martial story was never contradicted and it was even "blessed" by the most authoritative and interested person, Sir Henry Leach, as apparently it was considered a well established and consolidated fact in the Royal Navy, "sadly" only for you.


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

congratulations for having anticipated the analysis about Grenfell book page 88 and 89 and Kennedy page 115 with the " Richthofen circus " comparison with the old Swordfish on wills page 91, ... just one page after the court martial statement on Wills book page 90.

Another useless trial to refute the evidence as it shows, ... that will go nowhere.

Sir Henry Leach and Wills on their book becomes as you correctly wrote the most authoritative and interested persons on writing the truth about a possible court martial request on Capt. J.C. Leach, ... Sir Henry Leach father.

As you wrote, the Court Martial story was never contradicted and it was even blessed in writing by the, Sir Henry Leach, not only on Wills book, ... but also in Tarrant book he provided his father photo and the proper caption.

To be noticed the reason of the potential court martial request that is the same on Tarrant book, on Wills/Henry Leach book and for McMullen, ... always and for everybody was the failure to re-engage the Bismarck.

I think we can put a coffin on this debate now, ... unless somebody will find new evidences.

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Hello Alberto,

As you may recall I now have Wills' book on Leach, the book which apparently kick-started this witch hunt.

And guess what? The only biographer of Capt Leach, an enthusiastic American amateur historian dedicated to documenting every aspect of his subject's life, with access to private letters, Leach's confidential personnel report, a host of other sources, an ex RN man to do his UK research, access to the archives of the Royal Naval College Britannia, and who had Sir Henry Leach personally review every single page has one source and one source only for the Court Martial story.......................... Ludovic Kennedy!




wadinga

And Kennedy himself goes to some lengths to discount Tovey's claim of a court martial request by presenting strong evidence that Tovey's memory was failing at that point in his life. So this single source is anything but definitive regarding a court martial!

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

congratulations for having anticipated the analysis about Grenfell book page 88 and 89 and Kennedy page 115 with the " Richthofen circus " comparison with the old Swordfish on wills page 91, ... just one page after the court martial statement on Wills book page 90.

Another useless trial to refute the evidence as it shows, ... that will go nowhere.

Sir Henry Leach and Wills on their book becomes as you correctly wrote the most authoritative and interested persons on writing the truth about a possible court martial request on Capt. J.C. Leach, ... Sir Henry Leach father.

As you wrote, the Court Martial story was never contradicted and it was even blessed in writing by the, Sir Henry Leach, not only on Wills book, ... but also in Tarrant book he provided his father photo and the proper caption.

To be noticed the reason of the potential court martial request that is the same on Tarrant book, on Wills/Henry Leach book and for McMullen, ... always and for everybody was the failure to re-engage the Bismarck.

I think we can put a coffin on this debate now, ... unless somebody will find new evidences.

Bye Antonio

Henry Leach never states that he discussed a possible court martial with his father.

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Antonio, I'm a bit confused could you help?

You wrote that the reason for a court martial was because PoW "did not re-engage the Bismarck".

I'm not sure I understand this?

Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Dunmunro wrote: "Henry Leach never states that he discussed a possible court martial with his father"

Hi Duncan,
correct, he discussed with his father the battle with Bismarck in Singapore and he reviewed, sitting together with the author "page by page" Wills manuscript (page 8), blessing the mention of the requested Court Martial (pag.89-90) in which NO quote of Kennedy is explicited.

He had already provided to Tarrant the photo (pag. 61 of "KGV class battleships") of his father and (even accepting that he did not suggested the caption himself....) he did never react to the fact that it was mentioning the Court Martial as a fact, with his own name under the caption.

For Sir Henry the Court Martial request was an established fact. Only the "deniers" at any cost are still trying to refuse what was apparently consolidated for any officer in the RN, including his own son.

Cag wrote: "the reason for a court martial was because PoW "did not re-engage the Bismarck"

Hi Mr.Cag,
being the request possibly from the time PoW was still not back to Scapa and/or detailed reports about the battle and the disengagement were not yet available to Pound (we were still in the stage when he was saying to the Cabinet: "The PoW had then broken off action. Whether or not she had been right in doing so could not be judged on the information so far available."), the initial request was for the only apparent misconduct: the refusal to re-engage after the battle.
For this accusation Leach was obviously innocent (as he was under the orders of W-W), therefore the request for both of them means that the circumstances of the PoW disengagement would have been severely scrutinized during the Court Martial, of course.....


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

Duncan, if you read the statements that Alberto above highlighted into the Capt Leach biography book by Wills, ... supervised and approved page by page, ... statement by statement by Sir Henry Leach, ... you will realize that we do not need a piece of paper signed by Sir Henry Leach telling us that he spoke with his father about the Bismarck action and the consequent court martial potential request from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey for him and RearAdm Wake-Walker.

Not only, Sir Henry Leach anticipated exactly the same statement and version of the facts according to him, by providing his father photo and the proper signed caption to the Tarrant book few years before.

Tarrant_page_61_Leach_photo_caption.jpeg (100.04 KiB) Viewed 1001 times

Now I am sure you would agree on the fact that we are not talking about a heremitic lifestyle person, not a dementia or brain tumor suffering person, and not an old poor sailor memories.

@ CAG,

sure, no problems.

What I was trying to highlight above is the fact that either on McMullen interview where the source was Adm Tovey, ... as well as on Tarrant book photo caption and into Capt Leach biography book where the source was Sir Henry Leach, ... they both declared that the reason for the potential court martial request communicated by phone from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey was always the same :

... they were considering court martial RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach for not immediately re-engaging the enemy.

Mc Mullen interview :

Adm Pound told Adm Tovey on the phone that they were considering court martial RearAdm Wake-Walker and my captain ( Leach ) for not immediately re-engaging the enemy.

Wills biography book supervised by Admiral Sir Henry Leach at page 89-90 :

Sir Dudley Pound ( First Sea Lord ) made no attempt to overrule Wake-Walker ( the subject his WW justification not to re-engage the Bismarck even if the Admiralty had previously just requested his intentions to do so ), but after the battle the First Sea Lord ( Adm Sir Dudley Pound ) tried to turn this into a court martial offence against RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach.

Tarrant book photo provided by Sir Henry Leach caption :

The first Sea Lord ( Adm Sir Dudley Pound ) with Churchill prodding, unfairly pressed ( Adm Tovey is not listed here ) to have Leach ( WW is missed on this statement ) court martialled for failing to close and re-engage Bismarck after blew up during the action in the Denmark Strait. Refusing to lend himself to such a travesty of justice, Adm Tovey threatened to haul down his flag as C in C Home Fleet, with the result that instead of a court martial Leach was awarded a well deserved DSO. ( Admiral Sir Henry Leach )

What appear clear to me is that on all the above 3 statements that we are reading, ... from 2 different sources, ... it seems that the reason to justify the court martial initial request from Adm Pound was always the same : " The failure to close and re-engage the Bismarck ".

Of course the explanation is the same since it was generated by the phone call between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey, ... but either coming years after from Adm Tovey to McMullen, ... or from Sir Henry Leach memories from his father explanation after having talked directly with Adm Tovey on 1941 most likely, ... it did not change, ... confirming Adm Tovey memories being still very good when he was talking with McMullen and Adm Blake, ... or writing them into the letter Sir Kennedy wash referring to.

As Alberto correctly underlined above :

... being the request possibly from the time PoW was still not back to Scapa and/or detailed reports about the battle and the disengagement were not yet available to Pound (we were still in the stage when he was saying to the Cabinet: " The PoW had then broken off action. Whether or not she had been right in doing so could not be judged on the information so far available."), the initial request was for the only apparent misconduct: the refusal to re-engage after the battle.
For this accusation Leach was obviously innocent (as he was under the orders of W-W), therefore the request for both of them means that the circumstances of the PoW disengagement would have been severely scrutinized during the Court Martial, of course.....

Especially after the Admiralty had received the message about PoW battle damages being declared superficial.

Bye Antonio