The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Cag]

Hi All

William Davies gives Roskill a set of notes. He was DDOO Foreign in 1941. He was in the war room from the 20th to the 28th May usually from 08.00 to 22.00 and took turns in sleeping there or at home.

He states that Kennedy's pursuit tells the story well, Tom Phillips, Ralph Edwards and Charles Daniel conducted operations during the pursuit. Churchill made many visits as did Eden and Alexander, there were also two US representatives Mr Winant and Admiral Ghormley.

Churchill was kept occupied by Pound which left Phillips Edwards and Daniel to co ordinate things. He recalls the first argument being after the loss of Bismarck as Churchill was convinced the ship had doubled back to Norway whilst the naval opinion was France. Edwards and Daniels were ordered to produce an appreciation of Bismarck's probable course which eventually convinced Churchill of the navy view.

Admiral Ghormley thought the removal of Rodney and Vians destroyers from convoy escort as plumb crazy but thought the navy must know what's best. As the operation moved towards a climax Churchill rarely left the war room being restrained from sending signals of instruction by Pound and Alexander.

Daniels believed that the overall handling of the search was well done, the Admiralty providing just the information required with only occaissional back seat driving which with more info readily available to the HQ it was expected. He states that the shadowing of Wake-Walkers cruisers could not have been bettered and was admired by all despite the criticisms by Tom Phillips which had no substance whatsoever. The opinion was that Wake-Walker never put a foot wrong.

Holland's action in interception could have been bettered, but only in hindsight and so critics would be unjustified, the end result would have been the same whatever happened, as her ex captain the loss of Hood was a shock to all, but the vulnerability of Hood was known and he imagined Renown with better deck armour might have stood a better chance.

Rodneys movements were satisfactory and the implied criticism by Tom Phillips of her was unjustified. They had hoped that Dorsetshire could have picked up more survivors but it was hard to be critical of her leaving in the face of a U Boat presence. They thought that Ark Royals aircraft should have scored more hits but it was evident that some pilots were only partially trained.

In general the Admiralty machine worked well and after the breaking of German ciphers they were confident in future operations against naval raiders.

Hope this helps everyone

Dear Antonio if you believe that trolling is taking place I strongly advise you to take action. But I will state definitely for your benefit for the last time and hope you understand it without any further doubt, that personally I am not trolling anyone and that I do take offence if I am being accussed of doing so.

You have put forward a case, and people have the right to agree or not agree, ask questions, put forward alternative viewpoints to your conclusions. That denotes a free forum, just as you can and have put forward questions, offer alternative views or disagree with others conclusions who did not accuse people of trolling. The point is in a free forum no one has the right to deny anyone their opinion or decide who can post or who can not because their conclusion is not agreed with.

You postulated that official documents I had mentioned were fabricated lies and everyone was complicit in a cover up, Leach's report is not a lie, the GAR of PoW is not a lie.

I will agree on one point, I too am getting very tired, but at constant accusation of low intelligence, or trolling, or relevant facts being called irrelevant. But rather than accusation of others I try to be respectful and accept everyone has an opinion and the right to express it.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

here the links that relates to this shameful story for everybody benefit and understanding.

1) The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait -> The beginning of this story with the War Cabinet May/June 1941 minutes
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728

2) Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War -> The real reasons for the inquiry initial intention by Adm Pound.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5830

3) Hit on POW compass platform -> The truth about the HMS Prince of Wales disengagement time and reasons
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6276

4) The Norfolk and Suffolk tracks at Denmark Strait -> The truth about the 2 heavy cruisers distance during the battle
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231

5) The Plot -> What as been done in order to "change" the previously declared heavy cruiser distance during the battle
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495

6) Cover up synopsis -> What has been done by Adm Tovey to "change" the reality and enable the Officers recognition
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495

7) The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait -> The final closure by the Admiralty and Churchill on Adm 205/10
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728

It should be the logic conclusion of this all re-construction, but I am sure that the " trolls " will immediately overwrite it since their intent of being here on this forum is only to be sure that the shameful reality about what happened will never be easily and clearly showed up.

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Cag wrote: "Leach's report is not a lie....."

Dear Mr. Cag,
it depends on which report: the (doubtful) one where he says he had 3 guns in action when he decided to break off the engagement ?
The one where he said the guns in action were 5 at the moment of the disengagement ?
His final one, where he (correctly) decided not to mention the actual number of guns in action anymore as being the reason for the retreat ?

I guess you mean the third one.......
So, didn't he lie when he stated that the compass platform hit happened at 6:02, before his decision to disengage, when we all (should....) know by now that, at 6:01:30 (as per PoW map and gunnery plot), his ship was already answering the rudder and turning hard away (thus the order had been already given at around 6:01) ?
I know, we speak about a minute, but 1 minute is a quite long time in the PoW battle, that lasted less than 10 minutes.


In any case, even admitting that Leach incorrect statement was a "soft" lie or an "innocent error", Tovey (very correctly) considered his report NOT BEING ENOUGH to address for the War Cabinet the "aspects that 'prima facie' required explanation", when considering the Articles of War.
He added at point 19 of his despatches, two heavyweight intentional lies: the 06:13 retreat time and the "Y" turret jam BEFORE the decision to disengage. This is an incontrovertible fact, and, based on these lies, the Admiralty board approved the decision to disengage, as Barnes wrote to Tovey.

Point19.jpg (83.03 KiB) Viewed 971 times

Admiralty_Point_13_V2.jpg (35.19 KiB) Viewed 971 times

It should be crystal clear for everybody, at least it is VERY CLEAR to me......


Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Hi All

I hope that my post from the William Daniels notes helped, it is important as he was a first hand observer of the operation and of the mood in the war room and who exactly criticised whom.

Dear Antonio,

Again if you have the belief that people are trolling or that once you have posted something on a free forum no one has the right to post after you I advise you to please ask the moderator or Mr Rico for advice.

Dear Alberto,

The 3 gun and 5 gun signals (not reports) were IIRC given an explanation were they not? This situation was when Hood was sunk not when PoW was disengaging or am I wrong?

Unfortunately the two sides once again had opposing opinions over this and despite the usual to and fro arguments it was not resolved. I'm afraid that is the problem here, nothing is ever resolved, no clear outcome but both sides can claim victory. When we discuss things and actually get close to some kind of agreement the whole thing falls apart, usually due to some accusation of wrong doing or disrespect.

We have seen PoW GAR and we know Barbens report, the guns/crew were not ok before during and after the battle, no matter how much it is denied. Taking arrestors out, seized pins, stripping out hinge trays, using hammers and pinch bars to keep supply going in action, cutting thread off levers, turning off hydraulic supplies, faulty drill, leaking flooded turrets do not denote all was well. But if you believe it was that is your opinion and I accept it.

I am a bit shocked that you state 06.02 is a soft lie, if Leach was complicit he would have put 06.13 wouldnt he? The two bits of the same overall report would match would they not? The enclosure iv maps would read 06.13 would they not?

Rowell when asked by the 2nd Hood Board of inquiry stated that the timings he and Leach came up with during the next day could be in error by up to 2 minutes. Hunter-Terry gives Hoods open fire time as 05.52, this is 05.52,30 in official British reports and 05.53 in ships logs including German ones. We seem quite happy to round up or down other times or decide exactly when things were done off estimates but 06.02 is a soft lie?

I'm sorry to say that it is clear that if one side are branded deniers at all costs then the other side can be branded promoters at all costs. Those stuck in the middle have no chance, and it is easy to understand why so many have discontinued to post on the subject.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Cag]

Hi All

Just to add, the trajectory of the CP hit the HACS tower hit the hull hit found in dry dock below the waterline and the funnel hit all came from off the bow. This would denote PoW was hit before any manoeuvre to break off the action.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Cag wrote: "...I'm afraid that is the problem here, nothing is ever resolved, no clear outcome....."

Hi Mr.Cag,
unfortunately it's YOU who feel nothing is resolved. For me everything is clear and the saga/cover up very well demonstrated especially after Roskill books and documents and the ADM 205/10 precious papers between Pound, Alexander and Churchill......

you wrote: "I am a bit shocked that you state 06.02 is a soft lie, if Leach was complicit he would have put 06.13 wouldnt he ?"

for the very last time, Leach report is just LESS incorrect than Tovey's, but he too added precious seconds under Bismarck fire, also astutely avoiding to put in his report the exact retreat time (that could never have been after 6:02) as the maps he had at his hand were demonstrating the IMMEDIATE turn away of PoW after 6:01). It can be considered a soft lie OR an innocent error, as I have written but YOU are just ignoring in your post above.....

Tovey report is FOLLOWING the one from Leach, and Leach could neither counter it nor approve, becoming complicit.
Tovey decided that what Leach had written in his report was by far not sufficient to discharge him.......YOU don't want to accept this, and prefer to continue mixing everything, speaking about Rowell, Barben, rammers, pins, shells trajectories, etc. that have NOTHING to do with this discussion about the Court Martial....... A precise timeline has already been established by Antonio correlating British and German reports plus photos/film...... I have NOT seen an alternative one and this is NOT anyway the correct thread to discuss it.

you wrote: "....Those stuck in the middle have no chance...."

Please, also STOP alluding to the fact that you are "in the middle", it's just ridiculous. You repeat this all the time but "excusatio non petita, accusatio manifestat".
Admit YOUR clear side-taken approach and agenda aimed only at defending Capt.Leach !


Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Hi All

Alberto, for a great deal of people things are not resolved. I am aware that for you they are, and I accept that. I presume I was correct that the 3 and 5 gun signal was about the Hood explosion and not the withdrawal?

However you are correct this discussion is the CM threat. The threat was a charge of not re engaging Bismarck and the reasons for which have been discussed. However this has been extended by yourself from not re engaging Bismarck to include implied threat and an accepted by myself investigation into withdrawal of PoW from action, and even Norfolk and Suffolks non participation in the battle etc.

Your cover up concerns the withdrawal time of PoW and Norfolks distance from Hood at the time of her destruction. Those two points have nothing to do with a threat of a court martial for non re engagement of Bismarck. Your inclusion of investigation of the withdrawal in this subject of a CM necessitates that the reasons for the withdrawal including gunnery problems are discussed.

You cannot simply say the CM threat and other investigations are linked but we can or cannot discuss the reasons given by those being accussed that explain those actions or restrict the sources used. You are correct PoW gunnery problems have nothing to do with the CM, but they have everything to do with your premise that the withdrawal was under investigation which you have brought up in a discussion regarding a specific CM threat.

Innocent error or soft lie, my goodness reports clearly state Leach was knocked senseless by the hit, and you are questioning precious seconds! The timings given are not precise in any report, map or chart, they were estimated and admitted as being in error. Leach's report was included in Toveys despatch and seen by the vast majority of the board, Tovey stated in his letter to the Admiralty they would be forwarded.

You may think I have a side, I'm afraid you have it wrong but you have the right to hold any opinion you choose.

In reality what I am interested in is your inclusion of an investigation into the reasons for a withdrawal in this subject matter of a CM threat, understanding exactly the reasons from those that made that decision and whether or not they were justified reasons.

May I remind you that during my time posting here I have provided information details and facts that you yourself have used to promote your conclusions, and have worked with you to create better knowledge. However when we use the words cowards and cowardice in this subject I prefer to seek answers in those documents that are not disputed to understand things better. The number of independant documents that confirm gunnery problems outweigh McMullens in battle opinion.

We must look at the three reasons given by the man who took the decision to withdraw, and see if they are justified, that I presume is what the board did.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Cag wrote: "I presume I was correct that the 3 and 5 gun signal was about the Hood explosion and not the withdrawal?"

Hi Mr.Cag,
you presume wrongly, PLEASE read them and post an evidence of what you incorrectly say (for the second time...).
(btw, my mistake, in the 27 May message the guns in action were declared to be 7, not 5 (at withdrawal time), becoming 9 in the final June 4 report........I had to spend my time to find them again..... )

I wait for your admission you were wrong about the timing of the guns in action according to Leach on May 24 and 27.

you wrote (again): "You may think I have a side......."

Q.E.D. (accusatio non petita, accusatio manifestat)


The CM threat, the subsequent requests for "explanations" and the cover-up are fully clear thanks to Antonio's reconstruction, Roskill books and papers and to ADM 205/10 self-explanatory minutes. I have to accept you still fell they are not clearly demonstrated (however I don't see what we should find more.....) but I have no interest at all in discussing here again and again whether Leach was right or wrong disengaging.
I understand that for you he was right, no matter what. For me he was right ONLY with hindsight, but under military viewpoint he was wrong and should have been court-martialled, based on the Articles of War.


Bye, Alberto

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Alberto,

The first 24/5 message from PoW to CS1 states A and B turrets in action Y turret 2 guns in action ie at that moment in time. This concurs with his report of 4th June see below.

The second 24th May message at 10.07B from PoW to CS1 and CinC HF gives 9 main guns in action at that time.Y 2 would not be fixed until 13.00hrs.

There is a disputed message from the Wellings book dated 24/5 in which Leach gives details of Hood's survivors, a detail he would not have known at that time 08.00 (see Electra message 09.06). This gives details of the action as well but importantly there is no official record of this message anywhere except in Wellings book.

There is a PoW signal on the 27/5 giving battle damage summary but no gun detail. However the fact that you say Leach said 7 guns in action at withdrawal would be correct as A1 Y2 and Y3 would be out of action, dependant on when B turret lost its three rounds.

Leach states 5 guns in action in his June 4th report as Y turret would not bear, this would be correct as A1 gun was lost but does not account for other losses noted in A turret. He does not mention number of guns in action at time of withdrawal only that 2 guns of Y turret were available again at 07.20 see first message.

There is one further reference from VCNS Tom Phillips to the Commodore 13th CS stating PoW has two guns out of action timed 12.50B.

Interestingly there is also a message from the 1st Sea Lord to CS1 at 11.26B on the 24th.

However I will search again to find your exact signal references or if you would be so kind you may reference them for me.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Alberto, I have found the 3/5 guns message dated the 27th May and it refers to the guns in action as it includes the phrase Y turret would not bear. Is this the message you refer to?

It was discussed that 3 guns may have been in action, ie firing, or 5 guns being capable of being fired in salvos, the jury was out. It was not withdrawal however and it was referenced to the Wellings message that is not found in any official record.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Mr.Cag,
I refer to the messages:
1) 24/5: 3 guns in action AFTER hit in CP (uncertain origin)
2) 27/5: 3+4 guns in action after turn to port ONWARD (so at withdrawal time too).

and to Leach final report: 5+4 guns in action after the turn ONWARD.

They are all posted in this forum, Articles of War thread.


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello Alberto,

You have said:

I have no interest at all in discussing here again and again whether Leach was right or wrong disengaging.

Good, because this is not the place. In this thread we are discussing what actually happened in 1941 and not the opinions of 21st century posters on what should have happened.

Some while ago I asked, since you and Cag are the ones who have seen the Roskill Papers whether

I am a little unclear about:

After Churchill words "the worst thing since Troubridge turned away from the Goeben in 1914" (not only a private outburst, but repeated on May 26 in the Admiralty War Room !)


and repeated in front of the officers at the War Room on May 26


Repeated in the War Room? Where is this described? Colville says this rant against Cunningham's attitude and Leach's action was made at Chequers on the 25th referring to "yesterday". Once again the full text, from Colville, not edited to make it seem like it is all about Leach:

""He berated the First Lord and First Sea Lord continuously, both on this account and because in the Mediterranean, the navy shows, he thinks a tendency to shirk its task of preventing a seaborne landing in Crete since Cunningham fears severe losses from bombing. The PM's line is that Cunningham must be made to take very risk: the loss of half the Mediterranean Fleet would be worthwhile in order to save Crete."


In fact one and a half sentences out of two is about Cunningham, not Leach, and "admirable" Wake-Walker is not mentioned at all.

Was the "Troubridge" performance repeated in the War Room at the Admiralty on the afternoon Monday 26th? If so who witnessed it?

For Cag:

Thank you for continuing to provide vital input on what actually happened in 1941. I have seen a document in 205/10 which says that Phillips thought Dalrymple-Hamilton's course was sub-optimal but nothing to support this observation:

He states that the shadowing of Wake-Walkers cruisers could not have been bettered and was admired by all despite the criticisms by Tom Phillips which had no substance whatsoever. The opinion was that Wake-Walker never put a foot wrong.

The elephant in the room is of course the cock-up over the D/R plotting. Was there no comment on this?

All the best

wadinga

[Cag]

Hi All

Hi Alberto page 51 I believe. Thank you for the heads up on that forum subject.

I see your last point as regards the 'turn onward' it was not at Hoods loss, therefore I apologise for my assumption that it was something to do with that. However as you initially wrote he did not say there were 3 or 5 guns in action at the moment of the disengagement either.

1) Your No1 is not really of an uncertain origin it is the Wellings signal as we have already discussed. There is no official record of this signal having ever been sent. Do we still believe this is a true signal?

2) This is the May 27th signal as I mentioned above. The 3 guns mentioned are again at a point when Y turret would not bear. A arcs opening would have allowed 2 guns of Y turret to fire alternately giving 5 and 4 guns in each salvo.

3) Leach states 5 guns in action in his report, again at a point when Y turret would not bear, PoW was not firing double salvos (ie broadsides), A arcs opening would give the same salvo gun count as the above.

However again apologies for my incorrect presumption.

Wadinga

The only mention is of the argument between Churchill as to the direction of Bismarck, he was convinced that Norway was the direction of travel not Farnce. He was eventually persuaded by Edwards and Daniels presentation.

William Daniels states the general thought was Wake-Walker acted well, but that Tom Phillips had criticism.

Best wishes
Cag.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

this thread is about the Court Martial attempt done by Adm Pound and defeated by Adm Tovey.

Who does have something more official of what Stephen Roskill, the Royal Navy Official Historian for World War 2 declared, is invited to show it to us.

Roskill_and_the_Admirals_pages_126_126_313.jpg (96.94 KiB) Viewed 995 times

Roskill_Naval_Policy_Vol_2_page_464.jpg (74.58 KiB) Viewed 995 times

Roskill_Naval_policy_page_464_note_1.jpg (105.89 KiB) Viewed 995 times

Since nobody can refute or counter what you can read above, ... the event is confirmed ... the attempt of the Court Martial trial is confirmed ... and the case is CLOSED !

Please respect the forum rules and do not keep on changing subject.

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Please provide one source for a CMDS that is from someone other than Tovey.

Listing 3 actual or potential CMs in the world's largest navy during a 6 year long global conflict seems hardly excessive.

IMHO, the CMs around the scuttling of HMS Manchester were fully warranted.