The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Alberto Virtuani]

"Unfortunately, internet forums are a hot spot for such personalities."

yes, unfortunately this "northcape" has not been banned (yet) for his INSULTS (he was the one telling me "liar" first, possibly not a troll, for sure a poorly educated person) !


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

This is Ted Briggs at the second board of inquiry for the loss of Hood, regarding Adm.Holland orders:

94. What did you say the Admiral said about not putting the fire out?
He said to the S.G.O. "leave it until the ammunition had gone". I think they were his exact words......
96. Do you know if the Executive Signal had been made before this last signal before the explosion occurred?
I am not certain but I think it had. There was not a terrific explosion but the officer of the watch said to the Admiral that the Compass had gone and the Admiral said move over to the after control.

Apparently all the officers present to the board accepted as the most normal thing that the Admiral commanded also the ship's operations (for sure it was NOT the squadron in these cases.... ).

This is another of example of you inserting inferences and suppositions between two events:
historical record:
Briggs testimony -> BofI members reaction to the statement (which is unknown and not ever likely to be known as the board was looking for the cause of Hood's loss not at Holland and Kerr's command arrangements)

Alberto:
Briggs testimony -> BofI members reaction to the statement (board's silence = RN acceptance of Holland's action as SOP and thus any Admiral on a RN ship was only there to supervise the captain and so Leach must have been a coward)


I guess A&A consider that Captain Kerr was also under suspicion of cowardice?

So we have two events (Briggs testimony and BofI member's thoughts about Holland's command style) with an unknowable outcome but which Alberto supplies via inference and supposition without the slightest support from the historical record.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Another guy who has never been on a ship with an Admiral present in the bridge, who is only able to quibble about "inferences and suppositions between two events" , just because posted facts are annoying for a denier.

Or possibly the shameless Mr.Dunmunro will try to say that Ted Briggs invented these orders because he was suffering "dementia", as he had tried with Tovey already.



Everyone has the right to be ignorant about naval and military things, but arrogance, when demonstrated embarrassingly WRONG, is really unbearable... .


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Another guy who has never been on a ship with an Admiral present in the bridge, who is only able to quibble about "inferences and suppositions between two events" , just because posted facts are annoying for a denier.

Or possibly this shameless Mr.Dunmunro will try to say that Ted Briggs invented these orders because he was suffering "dementia", as he had tried with Tovey already.

Anyone has the right to be ignorant about naval and military things, but arrogance, when demonstrated embarrassingly WRONG, is really unbearable... .


Bye, Alberto

Trolls can't help but insert more personal attacks rather than address the issue at hand. Again the inferences and suppositions about the role of admirals and captains rather than about their roles as mandated by law.

Let's take another look:

according to the Squadron Gunnery Officer "on the starboard side of the boat deck aft, causing a fire in th 4" ready use lockers".
90. Can you remember what the S.G.O. actually said?

Yes, he said "She has hit us on the boat deck and there is a fire in the ready use lockers".
91. Did the Gunnery Officer say 4" ready use lockers?

No, Sir.
92. Did he say starboard side?

No, but the explosion was on the starboard side, because we all tended to fall over to starboard.
93. Did you see this hit?

No, Sir, I did not see it.
94. What did you say the Admiral said about not putting the fire out?

He said to the S.G.O. "leave it until the ammunition had gone". I think they were his exact words. The next think (sic) that I know about the Captain picked up the telephone to ring the Spotting Top and he could not get through. A midshipman told me afterwards that he had seen bits falling from the Spotting Top but I did not see it. We got into 12 miles and we did a 40° turn to port and it was either just immediately after or whilst we were doing this turn that the explosion took place.

Who does the S.G.O. report to?

[Alberto Virtuani]

So what

"There was not a terrific explosion but the officer of the watch said to the Admiral that the Compass had gone and the Admiral said move over to the after control. "

who does the Officer of the Watch report to ?
It's incredible that hooligans (ignorant of naval and military things) cannot admit they were wrong, not even a single time.


The relevant point here is that Holland gave orders regarding the conduct of the ship, not only of the squadron, but this guy prefer his tricks, quibbling over "reporting chain" (while these men were bravely fighting a battle, not caring so much about their role, as obvious) to try to sneakily "cover" the most important fact, that Leach was not left alone (fully in command) of his ship, after the Denmark Strait.



Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

So what

"There was not a terrific explosion but the officer of the watch said to the Admiral that the Compass had gone and the Admiral said move over to the after control. "

who does the Officer of the Watch report to ?
It's incredible that hooligans (ignorant of naval and military things) cannot admit they were wrong, not even a single time.


The relevant point here is that Holland gave orders regarding the conduct of the ship, not only of the squadron, but this guy prefer his tricks, quibbling over "reporting chain" while in action to sneakily "cover" the most important fact, that Leach was not left alone (fully in command) of his ship after the Denmark Strait....


Bye, Alberto

The SGO reports to the admiral and is part of the admiral's staff.

The Admiral cons the squadron and so on a flagship the admiral will issue the relevant orders for manoeuvre. Theoretically, Holland should have deferred to Kerr regarding the changeover to after control and it was incidents like that that led to friction between admirals and captains, but by law it was the captain's responsibility. This is what Briggs stated in his book:

"...And then a blinding flash swept around the outside of the compass platform. Again I found myself being lifted off my feet and dumped head first on the deck. This time, when I got up with the others, the scene was different. Everything was cold and unreal. The ship which had been a haven for me for the last two years was suddenly hostile. After the initial jarring she listed slowly, almost hesitatingly, to starboard. She stopped after about ten degrees, when I heard the helmsman's voice shouting up the voice-pipe to the officer of the watch: 'Steering's gone, sir.' The reply of 'Very good' showed no signs of animation or agitation. Immediately Kerr ordered: 'Change over to emergency steering.'
http://hmshood.com/crew/remember/tedflagship.htm#Ch20

So Briggs remembers it a bit differently 50 years on, but the key fact was that the personnel on the bridge had been shaken up by the magazine explosion and in the heat of the moment Holland may have issued the order.

In typical troll fashion, you again try to insert the unsupported claim that the Admiral was there to supervise Leach and not his squadron. To make this claim you have to have some supporting historical material that directly states that PoW was assigned as a flagship because her captain was under suspicion of cowardice and/or that this was an accepted practise in the RN. Perhaps it was standard procedure in the RMI and you are getting the two confused?

[HMSVF]

So what

"There was not a terrific explosion but the officer of the watch said to the Admiral that the Compass had gone and the Admiral said move over to the after control. "

who does the Officer of the Watch report to ?
It's incredible that hooligans (ignorant of naval and military things) cannot admit they were wrong, not even a single time.


The relevant point here is that Holland gave orders regarding the conduct of the ship, not only of the squadron, but this guy prefer his tricks, quibbling over "reporting chain" (while these men were bravely fighting a battle, not caring so much about their role, as obvious) to try to sneakily "cover" the most important fact, that Leach was not left alone (fully in command) of his ship, after the Denmark Strait.



Bye, Alberto

https://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chron ... _Wales.htm


Interestingly it doesn't state who was apparently "over" John Leach for Operation Riviera... Again HMS POW was always going to be a flagship or vice flag. She was the most modern ship in the RN. Asking when she didn't have an Admiral on board is a bit like asking can you show me the last time England didn't play with a goalkeeper outside of training. She was a natural candidate.From the link she was used by Le Curteis 2ic Home Fleet (with Tovey in KGV) he hauled down his flag and was replaced with Tom Phillips.... The rest is well known.

If you were to roll back 25 years, then yes, it wasn't that unusual for a battleship to commanded by just in captain. The squadrons were led by vice admirals, the rest of the ships by captains. But then the numbers of dreadnoughts and battlecruisers were much bigger and in one large fleet.

Heck even HMS Barham - a bit of a crock but part of the Mediterranean fleet had an admiral on board when she sank in 1941. Was Admiral Pridham-Wippell keeping an eye on Captain Geoffrey Cooke when she met her demise? Doubtful to be honest.



Best wishes

HMSVF

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "In typical troll fashion, you again try to insert the unsupported claim that the Admiral was there to supervise Leach and not his squadron."

In a typical arrogant fashion, Mr.Dunmunro is unable to admit that (once again, after his crazy theory of few days ago regarding Hood bows proceeding for 1500 yards after the explosion ) he was simply wrong trying to support what a very ignorant hooligan said, based only on theoretical "separation of duties" written somewhere, having no experience at all of military/naval real life, where the senior commands the junior....

It's obvious for everybody that an Admiral limits dramatically the independent command of the ship for a Captian, this is the point I made (confirmed at pag.124 by Wills book on Captain Leach, reviewed by Sir Henry Leach, a competent officer, I guess), and this point is well evident, for whoever knows the Navy. It may well have been a random circumstance that Leach was always with an Admiral on board , but it is a fact.


In any case this is another example of very successful trolling divertion from the topic of the thread, having no way to counter the evidences that points to a menace of a serious investigation over the conduct of Leach and Wake-Walker on May 24.



Bye, Alberto

[northcape]

to try to sneakily "cover" the most important fact, that Leach was not left alone (fully in command) of his ship, after the Denmark Strait.

Bye, Alberto

It is stated that it is a fact that Leach was not fully in command of his ship after DS.

The fact is that Leach had an admiral on board when he got sunk. It is an opinion that he was not fully in command of his ship after DS.

A fact needs to be proven. We have a proof that Leach had an admiral on board. We don't have a proof that he was not fully in command of his ship after DS. So it is not a fact. Calling it so is wrong, and if it is done intentionally, it is lying (again).

So far I thought that there is only a problem with the english language, but I'm not sure now. This behaviour seems more indicative of rather limited logical/intellectual capabilities (option 1), or of lying again (option 2). Or both.

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote: "In typical troll fashion, you again try to insert the unsupported claim that the Admiral was there to supervise Leach and not his squadron."

In a typical arrogant fashion, Mr.Dunmunro is unable to admit that (once again after his crazy theory of Hood bows proceeding for 1500 yards after the explosion ) he was simply wrong sustaining what an ignorant person said, based only on theoretical "separation of duties"....

It's obvious that an Admiral limits dramatically the independent command of the ship for a Captian, this is the ONLY point I made, and it is evident, for everybody who knows the Navy.



Bye, Alberto

There's no connection (except by your inference and supposition) between my hypothesis regarding how far Hood* may have moved after the magazine explosion and my statement that the duties of an admiral and a captain are defined by law. Trying to call the statement into question by referring to an unrelated hypothesis is typical trolling.


You now try and back away from your statment:

Historical facts: Leach was never left alone on board his ship anymore, always being "supervised" by an Admiral

which I suppose is progress of a sort but you still refuse to admit that an admiral's responsibility is to supervise his squadron and it is the captain who is responsible for running the ship and that these duties are set by law.





*However, just for the record:
see my post of Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:32 pm:
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 570#p78850

which quotes Bill Jurens, who has studied the wreck, and my post gives the distance of the CT from the wreck, in reply to his quoted statement.

[Alberto Virtuani]

A poor hooligan wrote: "So far I thought that there is only a problem with the english language, but I'm not sure now. This behaviour seems more indicative of rather limited logical/intellectual capabilities (option 1), or of lying again (option 2). Or both."

The poor guy has doubts, while I'm sure about such an abject (crystal clear english word, no problems) person, who came into this forum ONLY to insult without having given any added value ever to the discussion...

The same person wrote: " It is an opinion that he was not fully in command of his ship after DS".

He has not even read pag.124 of Wills book about Captain Leach ("In the highest traditions of the RN"). The book was reviewed by the son of Captain Leach (someone a bit more competent than this guy), and explains clearly how Leach felt with Phillips on board: an opinion, but quite authoritative....

Dunmunro wrote: "you still refuse to admit that an admiral's responsibility is to supervise his squadron and it is the captain who is responsible for running the ship "

Mr.Dunmunro still refuses to accept that an Admiral may give kind "suggestions" to a Captain ("Captain I would be glad if you could...:") that are actually orders, except if the Captain wants to get himself into serious troubles or has very solid reasons to refuse...
In action, of course, Holland forgot this peacetime "politeness" and he gave direct orders (without caring much of any "regulation" ) related to the conduct of Hood herself, not of the squadron.....

Only someone who has never served on board can imagine that a Captain is fully in command of his ship, when she is a flagship.


Bye, Alberto

[paul.mercer]

Hi HMSVF,
I'm sorry that, due to the RN hooligans coming in each time to provoke and to insult, I have used "hostile" words: however, they are hostile and they fully deserve them (and worse).
I think we have presented several evidences that show what the Court Martial threat was about. You are free to trust Tovey (+ all serious historians + Sir Henry Leach) or to trust....Kennedy + the hooligans....

Paul Mercer wrote: "It seems that the debate is mainly split into several subjects"

Hi Paul,
yes, thanks for reminding that this thread is dedicated to the Court Martial threat. I have to respect your view about the other topics (Leach and W-W decisions and the cover-up), but I totally disagree, for the reasons I have exposed several times (also in the right threads...) and I will not repeat here.

Regarding the Court Martial, however, you are wrong: most unfortunately, there was no Inquiry at all that could "accept the points put forward" by the two officers . There were only intentionally sugar-coated reports that justified their decisions.


Last but not least, I have never insulted anyone first, and I have recently conceded an accusation, because it was retired immediately, but I will continue to insult the ones who have repeatedly insulted me first, until I get their public excuses !

an insulting guy wrote "the admiral has NO, repeat NO, role in commanding the ship. The Admiral does have a role in commanding the squadron "

very , very funny !

This is Ted Briggs at the second board of inquiry for the loss of Hood, regarding Adm.Holland orders:

94. What did you say the Admiral said about not putting the fire out?
He said to the S.G.O. "leave it until the ammunition had gone". I think they were his exact words......
96. Do you know if the Executive Signal had been made before this last signal before the explosion occurred?
I am not certain but I think it had. There was not a terrific explosion but the officer of the watch said to the Admiral that the Compass had gone and the Admiral said move over to the after control.

Apparently all the officers present to the board accepted as the most normal thing that the Admiral commanded also the ship's operations (for sure it was NOT the squadron in these cases.... ).

I wonder if this guy, who writes in capital letters total nonsense, has ever been on a ship with an Admiral onboard....I have been and I know that an Admiral can always give orders....of course, a Captain can say to the Admiral that he is prevailing his prerogatives according to the regulations, but this Captain must be a very self-assured one....


Bye, Alberto

Hi Alberto,
Many thanks for your comment; I see the debate goes even further from the original point, this time about whether Capt Leach needed a chaperone in his later years!
Although I do not want to enter the debate on this particular subject any more, I would be grateful if you could clear up a point for me.
I have always understood (rightly or wrongly) that the captain of the ship was in charge and if anything went wrong it was he that took the rap no matter whether it was his Officer of the Watch who put the ship on the rocks, a loss of the ship in battle (if he survived), or a retreat from that battle and in the RN this meant either a Court of Inquiry or Court Martial and no doubt had Admiral Holland survived the Hood he would have faced one. Obviously as he did not there was no one senior enough left to answer any questions over his tactics. I have to say that I find it incredible that there was not a major inquiry into the battle, after all, Hood was the Flagship of the Fleet, a ship that had been around the world ‘flying the flag’ and revered throughout the RN and the UK. On the other hand PoW was one of the RN’s latest battleships, no doubt expected to carry on the great traditions of the Navy, yet one was literally ‘blown out of the water’ and the other (and there is really no other way to put it) sent away with her ‘tail between her legs’ because she was taking a hiding from a far better prepared Bismarck and could not rely on all her guns to work when needed which was probably the reason Adml Wake-Walker would not risk any further major combat.
Yet in your reply (and I have the greatest respect for your knowledge) you said,
‘most unfortunately, there was no Inquiry at all that could "accept the points put forward" by the two officers’. ‘There were only intentionally sugar-coated reports that justified their decisions’.
This makes me wonder if in fact there was an inquiry, but to ‘protect’ the public and to keep the matter of the dodgy guns away from prying eyes the whole matter was shelved under what I believe is called the 100 year rule, which was applied when secrets must be kept? Perhaps we might have to wait another 30 years or so to find out! Any thoughts or is all the above just ‘Bull’!

[wadinga]

Hello All,

It is clear that only with the knowledge possessed by an officer in a small, relatively inactive, peacetime navy can one have an opinion on the impingements of a Flag Officer on the Captain's prerogatives, and all the rest of us should just "Shut Up".

I have been and I know that an Admiral can always give orders....of course, a Captain can say to the Admiral that he is prevailing his prerogatives according to the regulations, but this Captain must be a very self-assured one....

However the situation is very different in wartime, in a big navy with a tradition stretching back hundreds of years. In peacetime , in a small navy, Admirals are like fifth wheels, with little point except acting as unwanted commentators/inspectors of the Captain's performance, in making sure the decks are clean, that the sailors are smartly dressed in accordance with regulations and there are no scratches on the paintwork, ropes are tidy etc etc..


Rear-Admiral A T B Curteis, aboard PoW in the Halberd convoy, was in charge of the battleship Rodney, two cruisers and several destroyers when they were sent off as an interception force and would have little time to bolster the courage of any "timid cowards" aboard. Captain Leach was "Master under God" of Britain's latest battleship and her 1500 crew with the full approval of Sir Dudley Pound and Winston Churchill, as he was when they sailed aboard her a month previously.


In ships like Hood and PoW the Admiral was equipped with a completely separate Admiral's bridge, so he could stay out from under the Captain's feet as he fought his ship. With no other ships apart from PoW within easy communication, Holland had little to do except work closely with Kerr, and it may be the former was happy for the latter to take in messages like "the boat deck is on fire" whilst Kerr fought (guns, steering and engine room) his ship. There is no mention in what I have read of a First Lieutenant/ Executive Officer on PoW's Compass Platform or in the Hood account. Were these second in commands deliberately put in a separate location to avoid both Senior Officers being taken out by one hit? In such a situation an experienced man like Holland would be great assistance to Kerr without subverting his command of the ship.

The issue for me is that all of the rest of the references supporting, seem to come back to the same original source - Tovey. Surely there must be other substantive evidences - cabinet papers, memo's, personal logs from other people who were around at the time?

Well. HMSVF, we are told there is...….just one, apart from highly biased and distorted interpretations of those other documents, but you will have to pay A & A for the privilege of finding out what it is...........when their book comes out.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "only with the knowledge possessed by an officer in a small, relatively inactive, peacetime navy can one have an opinion on the impingements of a Flag Officer on the Captain's prerogatives"

A limited experience is always better than... nothing at all !
Anyway, the posted (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 755#p78877) board testimony of Ted Briggs , leaves no space for discussion in this regard, confirming that people having no military experience are unable to understand these dynamics, just sticking to the "prerogatives" written in their books.

Wadinga wrote: "In ships like Hood and PoW the Admiral was equipped with a completely separate Admiral's bridge, so he could stay out from under the Captain's feet as he fought his ship"

Still Holland was on the compass platform, in the traditions of the RN, fighting the battle close to Kerr, sitting in his chair (while Kerr was dutifully standing close to him) and giving (calm) orders for the operation of the Hood (not only the ones related to the deployment of the squadron).
Courtesy rules would suggest that he was asking Kerr to give the "executive" orders to his crew, but for Ted Briggs (and apparently also for the board members) it was obvious who was the senior officer taking the decisions there.


Bye, Alberto

[HMSVF]

Courtesy rules would suggest that he was asking Kerr to give the executive orders to his crew, but for Ted Briggs (and apparently also for the board members) it was obvious who was the senior taking the decisions there.

Good afternoon all.


Wasn't Kerr trying to contact the spotting top at the time of Hollands interjection to leave the fire to burn out?



In any case I don't think really it reinforces any argument in regards to poor old John Leach. The chances are whoever was captain of a battleship in WW2 was likely to have an admiral on board. They were high value, capital ships, that usually were part of a squadron led by an admiral certainly in WW2 (the exceptions being perhaps the "R's on convoy escort duty.. In WW1 as I mentioned it was slightly different as the numbers were much greater (3 times greater)so you did see ships run with only captains (look at the list of Grand Fleet commanders at Jutland and you can see). Seeing as HMS Prince of Wales was going to Singapore and was the strongest ship in the force Phillips was always going to use her. He was a "gun" man who thought that the battleship could beat aircraft. Given this, he was always going to be on POW - the latest technical achievement in the RN with the most complex AA suite and main guns. Same for Halberd,.Given that the ship would be sunk and Leach dead within 8 months it's hardly fair to say Leach was constantly "babysitted" or "childminded" given such a short time frame. The ship was at war and was and a natural flagship as one of the newest units..



Best wishes

HMSVF