The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Of course now you as well as all the other " deniers at any cost " here in, ... a well known list of persons, ...
Please could you list them for me. I'm wondering who the deniers are since Alberto created this term one month ago.
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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

you asked :
Please could you list them for me. I'm wondering who the deniers are since Alberto created this term one month ago.
Marc, ... it is NOT elegant to write here names of forum members, ... so pardon me but I prefer NOT to do it, ... they all know what is their attitude on writing here in and for what reason they do it all the time, ... they show NO cooperation at all, ... just a demolishing deniers attitude even on something that cannot be refuted anymore.

It is NOT so difficult to identify them by reading back this and other threads too, ... for example look at the support we have had on the bearings approach I referenced above, ... we ( me and you ) agreed about a set of bearing to remove the base inhibitors of a positive teamwork constructive cooperation for the battle map, ... at what support we have had in the last weeks ? NONE !

Another recent example, ... we found thanking you the Wake-Walker interview, ... and instead of accepting it and evaluate the content, ... it was started an useless debate about the date of it and the reason for WW to ( falsely according to the deniers ) declare what we can all listen from his own voice being declared by him in person during his May 1941 BBC interview ( ref. Kennedy Radio and Television, page 245 of Pursuit and the IWM tape date ).

I have enough of it so far, ... I understand the deep challenging of everything in order to bring out the most accurate and precise way to read the events, ... but there must be a limit on the challenging once the evidence are overwhelming and cannot be refuted any longer.

I hope this will change because there si no reason for it to be on a 75 years old story re-construction already well published by many, ... that I am only putting together better today.

Lets see what will be the real constructive cooperation on the next period ... lets use the bearing set and map as a verification table, ... I like to give everybody another chance, ... to show cooperation.

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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio,

it's not elegant to call people a denier, too. Actually most times I do not understand your reasoning so I'm probably also a denier. In any case it sounds very offensive.
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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi all,
I have to beg pardon if anybody has felt offended by the word "denier".

Just it looks to me quite hypocrite to have tolerated in the past that Antonio and me were called "revisionists", "idiot" and "stupid" WITHOUT anybody (including the (ONLY NOW) hypersensitive ones :negative:) was saying something in our defense..... :think:

Anyway, for the future, I will replace "denier" with "someone who refuse to accept the clear evidence" to avoid any misunderstanding, re-phrasing my last post in this "politically correct" way ( :shock: ) and attaching it here below.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:21 pm, edited 10 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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

I agree with you in line of principle, ... in fact as soon as definitions like " exotic ", ... " revisionist ", ... " byzantine ", ... and similar definitions later being used to define my seriously researched work will stop being used, ... I will not use it anymore, ... :wink:

It is NOT my intention to offend personally and directly anybody, ... but if somebody is joking me using those terms, ... I feel authorized as logic consequence to joke him too, ... one gets back what he gives to others, ... at least as a minimum price to be paid, ... :wink:

I hope we will be soon able to re-establish a more fair way to discuss here in about a 75 years old historical event that is just of interest of a limited number of persons in this world, ... and will change nothing for anybody, ... because almost all is already available being previously written by others more important authors than myself, ... and I am only putting together the various pieces and explain the logic of the whole reasons why those events occurred on that way. My main value add in this moment is my battle map, ... that nobody has ever realized so precisely and complete before with all the 6 involved ships tracks into a correctly defined battlefield, ... and as you can see it is not easy to have an acceptable cooperation on that as well.

Anyway, ... one way or the other I will finish my work no matter what, ... together with my Tirpitz 1/100 big model that I have to finish as soon as possible, ... since I promised that to an old friend.

@ Alberto,

forget the past, ... and I hope everybody will forget it too, ... I am not offended and I hope nobody is offended too, ... lets restart in a cooperative mode.

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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi all,

it's really funny now to see the "ones who refuse to accept the clear evidence at any cost" trying to deny the CM story.

Of course the story came from Tovey: who else could have accounted the phone call with Pound ? Tovey account came to Roskill and he did not publish it in 1955 ONLY because "it did not affect the operations", NO mention of any doubt from Roskill side.... :negative:
Tovey repeated independently the SAME story to McMullen and Blake. Kennedy published it, after having got it from Roskill, AND, after that, Roskill CONFIRMED it as a "more clear-cut" example of Pound being addicted to inquiries.

No reaction to this account came from ANYBODY at that time. Tarrant published it in a very well known and respected book, Wills repeated it and got Sir Henry Leach blessing. Now, in 2017, the "ones who refuse to accept the clear evidence" react all together indignantly.......why ? :think:


Possibly, because Antonio Bonomi, with his scientific reconstruction of the battle in 2005 and 2017, demonstrated clearly that at least 3 officer should have answered VERY difficult questions at a court martial and that, in order to celebrate and decorate them instead, it was needed to INTENTIONALLY ALTER the facts in official reports, building a "better" story. :cool:

The "fog of war" has benn finally dissipated and it has been clearly revealed as a "smoke screen". :D


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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello All,

A masterly summing up from Duncan, and a monstrous load of bluster in response.

The transparent excuse in "Naval Policy" footnotes made by Roskill, in 1976, and quoted so triumphantly, that he did not include the CMDS story because it was "not operational" holds no water. In two other controversial Admiralty decisions described in War at Sea Vol 1 he does not hold back at all from criticising Government and Admiralty. Neither matter was "operational", both resulted in actual Admiralty action against Senior Officers. Namely the dismissal of Dudley North described on p310 and the Board of Inquiry for Somerville on p 303. This is in the Official British Government history of the War at Sea. Needless to say he really rips into them when he gets to PQ 17..........................

The real reason is that he knew there was no corroborating evidence at all for the CMDS, and from the other incidents described in the letters he received from Tovey in 1954, which he sent on to Kennedy (20 years later), he already knew Tovey's memory was unreliable, because all the other evidence he had contradicted what Tovey recounted. If Colin McMullen and Admiral Blake had wanted to investigate Tovey's story, they would have found no corroboration either. They simply took him at his word- after all the Admiralty had realised their glaring mistake before any proceedings were instigated and the supposed miscreants given their much-deserved rewards instead. It becomes a charming anecdote. Even Roskill's decades-long crusade against Churchill and Pound's interference with operational matters, started in 1954 and culminating in Churchill and the Admirals 1977, nowhere cites Tovey's letters as the source of the CMDS story. Except hidden away in that 1976 footnote.

Having kept it under wraps for 20 years (having realised Tovey's unreliability), when he discovered Kennedy was writing Pursuit, he gave all the material he had including the other 1954 letters (and 1961) to him, and he is mentioned as the source, but only for the other instances of Tovey's failing memory. In fact there is no source specifically cited for the CMDS story in Pursuit. Obviously when Kennedy, as an ex-newshound, read Tovey's account the CMDS matter leapt out at him. Checking with Rear Admiral Pafford before he went to print, he discovered Tovey's memory shortcomings and put the caveat in the footnote to the Epilogue. He also disbelieves Tovey's explanation for the misplotting error see footnote 2 to Chapter 7 Pursuit.

There is a great tradition in British Military history, dating probably from the First World War, of demonising the highest echelons of the services. They were all "blunderers and butchers" and the politicians who controlled them even worse. More reasoned modern thought is giving a more balanced view. Tarrant and others have lazily reprinted the CMDS story, without a moment's reflection or apparent investigation or qualification, unlike Kennedy, because it is so attractive. The higher echelon machinators are shown to be venal, but good actually wins out and Leach and Wake-Walker are vindicated. Ahhh, happy ending.

Wills only real excuse for reprising it "without a moment's reflection or apparent investigation or qualification" in a biography of John Leach is that he lives in the USA and was doing his research by remote control, and I guess if the Royal Navy's official historian couldn't find any corroborating evidence over 20 plus years, there is likely none to find. However since he references Kennedy as a general source he might at least have included the caveats that even a Grub St newshound felt he must include.

As for Sir Henry, as Marc has succinctly described, he had enough distain for his political masters based on his own experiences to believe virtually anything of their predecessors, and since his father actually received his just accolades there were no wrongs to be put right.

Alberto asks
the "ones who refuse to accept the clear evidence" react all together indignantly.......why ?
and then supplies his own answer
Possibly, because Antonio Bonomi, with his scientific reconstruction of the battle in 2005 and 2017, demonstrated clearly that at least 3 officer should have answered VERY difficult questions at a court martial
No, because a very minor unsubstantiated anecdote, the subjects of which all received their justly-deserved honours and awards in 1941 is being used to traduce their reputations and that of their Service in a campaign of extrapolation far beyond fact and passed off as genuine research. The "scientific reconstruction" is based on glaring errors in the understanding of basic navigation in 1941, eg no understanding of the blatant shortcomings of Plan B and the PoW Action Plot, combined with a predetermination to prove lies, deceit and misrepresentation in every minor discrepancy between accounts. This is the "evidence are overwhelming and cannot be refuted any longer".

I am proud to be a Denier in this case and not in the least offended, since, for instance, I also deny that holograms were used to represent aircraft crashing into the Twin Towers so the CIA/Mossad/whoever could blow them up and pretend it was someone else.

I believe the list of deniers is long and distinguished and if we are outnumbered by
to hundreds of readers that thanking our article
the need for reasoned, informed debate is greater still.

Incidentally I never knew "Byzantine" could be construed as an insult.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

instead of loosing your time repeating on and on the same old story of something you will be never able to demonstrate just like Dunmunro, ... in the opposite of what has been written, ... I have in my hands now, ... and I can always show to you and everybody else proving my case, ... why you both do not use some of your time to cooperate on the base bearing map certification.

Thanks for helping on realizing something better compared to what currently was made available to all of us, ... in order to realize the truth, ... guess why it was never done before ?

This Court martial story is there and there is nothing you can do to demolish it now, ... unless you find a Medical Certification declaring Adm Tovey being an unreliable person when he declared the Court Martial story at first.

Clear enough ?

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 Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

instead of loosing your time repeating on and on the same old story of something you will be never able to demonstrate just like Dunmunro, ... in the opposite of what has been written, ... I have in my hands now, ... and I can always show to you and everybody else proving my case, ... why you both do not use some of your time to cooperate on the base bearing map certification.

Thanks for helping on realizing something better compared to what currently was made available to all of us, ... in order to realize the truth, ... guess why it was never done before ?

This Court martial story is there and there is nothing you can do to demolish it now, ... unless you find a Medical Certification declaring Adm Tovey being an unreliable person when he declared the Court Martial story at first.

Clear enough ?

Bye Antonio :D
We question Tovey's memory and veracity in 1954. not because we want to attack him or denigrate him but because we want to know the truth of the matter and we want to protect Tovey's legacy as one of the most outstanding Admirals to have ever served in the RN. Similarly, we want to defend the integrity of W-W and JL, two fine officers with outstanding service records.

You, OTOH, want to place Tovey, W-W and Leach into the dock, and worse, by accusing, trying and convicting them of really terrible things: cowardice, corruption and conspiracy. You try to use HL's book to destroy his father; something that would have horrified HL.

Whether or not there was a possible CM discussed between Tovey and Pound is an interesting historical question and even if completely true it is not proof of anything since any potential CM did not proceed nor was there any inquiry into the battle beyond the loss of Hood. It seems that their Lordships, even if understandably upset about the outcome of the DS battle, reviewed the action via the written reports submitted and decided that instead of recriminations that awards were in order.
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,
there is nothing you can do to demolish it now
Haven't you noticed- it's rubble already. :D

Do you agree with
In fact there is no source specifically cited for the CMDS story in Pursuit.
you will NEVER be able to over turn is that Stephen Roskill on 1976 did NOT support Kennedy note
Do you agree that in 1977 ie after Naval Policy was published, Roskill cited Kennedy Footnote 101 in Churchill and the Admirals? BTW That was a very good spot by you of the "Naval Policy" footnote. How Roskill must have regretted admitting sending that unsubstantiated assertion to Kennedy. Especially when Kennedy sought out Pafford and confirmed how many things Tovey was misremembering. So the very next book Roskill wrote he cited Kennedy instead. Dry academic Naval policy probably made poor sales whereas Churchill and the Admirals sold like hot cakes!
with no certification about it you do not have the right to state something like this
You don't need a Doctor's Note to agree that the "Tow Home" signal happened after Bismarck sank, not before Ark Royal's attack as Tovey alleged. You don't need a psychiatrist's analysis to agree that the words "to the shores of France" were not in the signal, as Tovey alleged

You don't need to be familiar with the study of Jung or Freud to agree as Kennedy points out p 234:
as in the same sentence, Tovey also wrote "I only wish they [the Admiralty] had signalled their interpretation of the bearings much earlier." showing he had forgotten having asked the Admiralty not to send their own interpretation.
All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ all,

it was enough to point out that there are here in the " ones who refuse to accept the clear evidence at any cost " to obtain immediate confirmation, ... thanks Wadinga and Dunmunro for your admission of the attitude driving you on this forum discussion, ... at least now it is more clear to everybody what you want to achieve no matter what, ... at any cost, ... and why.

Now everybody will understand why you do not like to cooperate realizing the agreed bearing map we have posted on the Bismarck KTB thread. No problems, ... I do not need your help and agreement now, ... not anymore.

As far as this thread goes, well I am more than satisfied with all I have found so far, and thanks for having allowed me to discover Stephen Roskill additional inputs, ... now it is more than enough for me.

Unfortunately for you now you do not have to try to convince me about your hypothesis, ... an useless effort anyhow, ... you need to try to convince the editor and publisher of the already published books of Roskill, Kennedy, Tarrant, Henry Leach and Wills referencing this story since years, ... the BBC and IWM about McMullen interview, ... and I am sure that once they will listen to your version of the facts, ... obviously supported by your hypothesis evidence, ... they will immediately write a correction on their publications and the IWM will remove or update McMullen interview.

Good luck on your efforts, meanwhile I wait here for you to let me know when those official corrections will occur.

Please do not loose time trying to convince my editor in Italy, ... because he is more convinced than me about this " Denmark Strait Saga " from the beginning until the end, ... just like me and ... Sir Henry Leach of course, ... :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 )
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ all,

it was enough to point out that there are here in the " ones who refuse to accept the clear evidence at any cost " to obtain immediate confirmation, ... thanks Wadinga and Dunmunro for your admission of the attitude driving you on this forum discussion, ... at least now it is more clear to everybody what you want to achieve no matter what, ... at any cost, ... and why.

Now everybody will understand why you do not like to cooperate realizing the agreed bearing map we have posted on the Bismarck KTB thread. No problems, ... I do not need your help and agreement now, ... not anymore.

As far as this thread goes, well I am more than satisfied with all I have found so far, and thanks for having allowed me to discover Stephen Roskill additional inputs, ... now it is more than enough for me.

Unfortunately for you now you do not have to try to convince me about your hypothesis, ... an useless effort anyhow, ... you need to try to convince the editor and publisher of the already published books of Roskill, Kennedy, Tarrant, Henry Leach and Wills referencing this story since years, ... the BBC and IWM about McMullen interview, ... and I am sure that once they will listen to your version of the facts, ... obviously supported by your hypothesis evidence, ... they will immediately write a correction on their publications and the IWM will remove or update McMullen interview.

Good luck on your efforts, meanwhile I wait here for you to let me know when those official corrections will occur.

Please do not loose time trying to convince my editor in Italy, ... because he is more convinced than me about this " Denmark Strait Saga " from the beginning until the end, ... just like me and ... Sir Henry Leach of course, ... :wink:

Bye Antonio :D
You are the one with the hypothesis that states that three or more senior RN officers displayed cowardice in the face of the enemy and then conspired to submit falsified reports to cover it up. You have maintained this hypothesis despite all the evidence to the contrary. Whenever you meet a fact that gets in your way you simply toss the fact into the trash rather than admitting that it weakens your case.

If you were to present your argument in a court of law it would be laughed out of the courtroom because you cannot show that the defendants ever actually conspired. A deadly blow to your case is your contention that Tovey squashed the CM by phone, almost the minute that KGV dropped anchor and before Tovey could have met with his underlings to hatch their dastardly plot.

If I and others seem to be sharp with you it is not because of our desire attack you, or a desire to join Tovey's supposed band of conspirators, or to protect the reputation of the RN but because of our desire to pursue the truth of the matter based upon the facts recorded at the time and to defend the good name and reputation of men, long dead, who cannot defend themselves.

You formed this theory some years ago, before gathering all the needed reports, and now you simply toss away all the "inconvenient truths" that you uncover so that what remains matches your theory. This is not how history is supposed to be written - first you gather the facts then you form a hypothesis that best matches them keeping in mind Occam's razor that the simplest explanation is the most likely.

The theory must conform to the facts but you are making the facts conform to your theory.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

....while the "ones who refuse to accept any evidence" make some non-facts (e.g.the never insinuated Roskill doubts about Tovey reliability or the poor old sailor failing memory of Ellis) conform their desperate defense at any cost against geometry, logic and witnesses.

I wonder what they need to open their eyes/nose and look at/smell the stinking can of worms that is by now the DS official version..... :stubborn:


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)
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by dunmunro »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:....while the "ones who refuse to accept the evidence" make some non-facts (e.g.the never insinuated Roskill doubts about Tovey reliability or the poor old sailor failing memory of Ellis) conform their desperate defense at any cost against logic, geometry and witnesses.

I wonder what they need to open their eyes/nose and look at/smell the stinking can of worms that is by now the DS official version..... :stubborn:


Bye, Alberto
Tovey was writing 13 years after the fact and we know (and have proof) that his memory was failing, Ellis was writing nearly 40 years later and his reports written at the time contradict his memoirs, but what is really telling is that those parts of Ellis's memoirs that are "inconvenient truths" to you and Antonio; "Norfolk being miles out of sight" are simply discarded. You and Antonio consistently "cherry pick" only bits and pieces of information and toss away what doesn't suit your theory. You want to use Ellis's report regarding bearings and timings to try and prove that Suffolk was practically being towed by Bismarck but then toss away his timing for Bismarck opening fire, even though according to you, Suffolk would almost have had her paint scorched by Bismarck's muzzle blasts... :dance:

Again, Tovey's memory isn't the issue, rather the issue is establishing exactly what did happen, and for that we must have verifiable facts and so we cannot use Tovey alone unless we can find something that he recorded at the time (diary or letter for example). The other fact, which we have pointed out is that Tovey quashing a possible CM doesn't make for a conspiracy since he supposedly quashed the CM before he could have done any conspiring. The facts of the DS battle do not support any charges being brought against anyone. The only major player in the DS battle who supposedly (according to some accounts... :think: ) acted improperly was Lutjens who is claimed to have frozen at a key moment in the battle and failed to give permission to open fire, but we know from Ellis, W-W and Leach that Bismarck opened fire at ~0553 and so even Lutjen's reputation is spared by the RN ship's reports prepared with information recorded at the time.
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hi Duncan,
again unsupported insinuations about the memory failures regarding the CM (Roskill doesn't mention any Tovey's failure in relation to this specific story and only Kennedy unfairly does, getting back the full confirmation of Roskill in "Naval Policy") and Ellis (from which we DO consider the distance between Suffolk and ALL the other ships (including Norfolk being out of sight at 14 sm probably due to different visibility conditions in that direction)). BTW, have you read the accusations of Ellis to his incompetent admiral for the loss of touch ? :lol:

In any case the distances are now well clarified (and they confirm the 14sm between NF and SF at 5:41, as well as the German source) by Antonio's reconstruction, for which I STILL DON'T SEE YOUR CONCURRENCE WITH THE AGREED BEARINGS... :negative: ), inconvenient because they will fix SF and NF very close to enemy.

Re. the conspiracy (that is not the topic here), it is clearly demonstrated by the INTENTIONAL alteration of facts that the same Tovey did in his despatches (point 17 in addition to point 19 are now closed, after the W-W interview (released few days after the facts, so hopefully no memory failure here....) there is no chance for you to say that they were not intentional embellishments).


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:50 am, 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)
Locked