The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

Dunmunro wrote"PoW's gunnery performance was poor"

Perfect confirmation of Adm.Santarini posted conclusion. We have rubbished this statement in dedicated threads already, but these guys (RN hooligans) need to believe that PoW fired badly, to justify Leach's decision to turn away.

Very shortly my answers to Mr.Dunmunro most misleading statements (italic) (ignoring KGV that AFAIK was not her opponent at DS ):

"14In output: 74% " Bismarck achieved 86% (assuming 108 ordered shots)
"5.25in output (4 gun salvos) 3 " we don't know data about Bismarck, but NO HIT , therefore data irrelevant
"First straddle: 6th salvo" First hit probably at 6-7 th salvo for BS (hit on spotting top ???)
"Total 14in hits 3" BS probably 5
"Total 5.25in hits 0 " . BS 6in 0 as well

I add here the comparison between PoW and BS gunnery using McMullen format (http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm):


PoW_vs_Bismarck(108)_firing-1.jpg


Not a big difference as everybody can see, with a slight advantage for PoW in RoF (albeit an advantage for Bismarck re. precision). Again mathematics doesn't help the "deniers" side.

Comparing KGV "practice firing" against a target unable to maneuver and making 6 knots in another situation is simply a nonsense.

Can we now come back to the topic of THIS thread PLEASE ?



Bye, Alberto

The previous post shows how PoW struggled to stay on target; radar ranging, with a near continuous stream of accurate ranges would have made this a much easier task and a 2nd or 3rd salvo straddle was likely with numerous straddles after that.

As discussed you have no idea what Bismarck's output was. We have numerous photo frames of her firing, and IIRC, they all seem to show 100% output.

We know that she fired 93 x 38cm versus 55 x 14in for PoW. This gives Bismarck a 1.7-1 advantage in rounds fired and a 1.9-1 advantage in weight of metal.

We have little data on Bismarck's 15cm guns but they should have been effective at 14k yds and almost certainly would have been if Leach had continued the engagement. If Bismarck was having 15cm FC problems, then that's something that Leach could not know about. PE's 20.cm guns would have been devastating if allowed to maintain a good FC solution and of course I ignored the 14 x 4.1in guns available to Lutjens.

PoW fired 55 rounds and achieved 3 hits for a 5.5% hits. with 74 rounds fired this would equal 4 hits, and radar ranging would increase the straddle rate from 3/18 to ~7/18 so we have more straddles with more rounds per straddle and this will equal ~7 hits. However, even with near perfect output and radar ranging, PoW would have still be at a severe disadvantage with no effective 5.25in output.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

I suggest Mr.Dunmunro to read and understand Adm.Santarini conclusions, clearly explaining why he needs to believe that PoW gunnery was poor.....

Santarini_pag.54_Bismarck_Performance.jpg (45.83 KiB) Viewed 967 times

Comparable data were posted above (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 275#p79261) and Mr.Dunmunro blah-blah will not change them (he was even able to count the 93 shells fired by Bismarck in 14 minutes vs the 55 fired by poW in 10 minutes only in his RN hooligan approach.....


Can we come back to the topis of this thread, the Court Martial ?


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello All,

Bill Jurens has said:

5) A Court Martial would have been pointless. Had any actions along these lines been considered necessary, it would have been easier – particularly considering the workload at the time – to simply reassign those involved to more mundane, or non-existent – duties.

As has been shown the potential victims were not downwardly reassigned, merely returned to the prestigious command of Britain's latest battleship specifically in time to host Churchill aboard Prince of Wales, in Leach's case and effectively promoted to functional C-in-C Home Fleet in Wake-Walker's.

There are numerous examples in C and the A, of officers downgraded on a whim of either Churchill or Pound, North, Danckwaerts and Talbot have already been listed, and on p111 the case of Admiral A F Pridham is described. As Captain of Hood 1936 onward he took exception to an Admiralty Memorandum called "Disaffection" with suggestions for quashing unrest in ship's crews based on the Invergordon Mutiny. Pridham disliked the content so much he wrote to his Mediterranean C-in-C, criticizing it, little knowing Pound wrote it when serving as Second Sea Lord! Petty resentment by Pound when he took over as C-in-C Mediterranean simmered, and the new First Sea Lord in 1939 got his revenge by appointing Pridham Flag Officer Humber, instead giving him a cruiser squadron as he had been promised.

BTW Second Sea Lord to C-in-C Mediterranean then up to First Sea Lord. Serving as a Sea Lord could be interspersed between sea-going commands and vice-versa.

There is no credible evidence of a Court martial threat and if the two officers were guilty of what Pound is supposed to have believed, they would have been side-lined without hesitation. CMDS is a myth.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

maybe I have lost something, … but I do not recall having read from Bill Jurens that he disregard or is assuming that Adm Tovey was not reliable while writing to Stephen Roskill about the Court martial threat.

If I recall correctly I have even wrote a thank to him for this fairness.

In any case, no one can refute Adm Tovey May 31st, 1941 letter, … and that was not a request for recognition for oustanding Officers, .. just the opposite, … and that letter alone is more than enough to justify what happened after as we know.

Maybe someone will start realizing it, … finally.

Bye Antonio

[Bill Jurens]

I will be out of town on vacation for the next week or so, and probably away from computers, meaning a complete response is, at least at this stage, not really practical.

Regarding statements made by various individuals, however, I don't really consider that any, taken in and of themselves, are of great reliability insofar as most quotes, etc. are merely residual surviving 'snippets', often written in relative isolation. I suspect that even if we could, via some magic time-machine, get all of the major participants together they would still argue somewhat, even today, about exactly who said what to whom, when, and why.

Things would undoubtedly be clarified by such a 'thought-conversation', but I am sure that residual disagreements and uncertainties would remain, and that some would still leave the table somewhat miffed at contemporary (or long-past) treatment by others. That's the nature of things when one is attempting to resolve complex interwoven activities, either in real-time or some time thereafter.

So I don't think there will ever be -- or ever was -- some sort of overall consensus or simple 'answer' which will explain all that went on during the course of the events in question. It was confusing then, and remains -- probably will remain -- quite confusing now.

In any case, it's, at least in my opinion, of little practical consequence. As Shakespeare said "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..."

Bill Jurens.

[northcape]

I will be out of town on vacation for the next week or so, and probably away from computers, meaning a complete response is, at least at this stage, not really practical.

Regarding statements made by various individuals, however, I don't really consider that any, taken in and of themselves, are of great reliability insofar as most quotes, etc. are merely residual surviving 'snippets', often written in relative isolation. I suspect that even if we could, via some magic time-machine, get all of the major participants together they would still argue somewhat, even today, about exactly who said what to whom, when, and why.

Things would undoubtedly be clarified by such a 'thought-conversation', but I am sure that residual disagreements and uncertainties would remain, and that some would still leave the table somewhat miffed at contemporary (or long-past) treatment by others. That's the nature of things when one is attempting to resolve complex interwoven activities, either in real-time or some time thereafter.

So I don't think there will ever be -- or ever was -- some sort of overall consensus or simple 'answer' which will explain all that went on during the course of the events in question. It was confusing then, and remains -- probably will remain -- quite confusing now.

In any case, it's, at least in my opinion, of little practical consequence. As Shakespeare said "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..."

Bill Jurens.

Exactly. All this has been stated by all reasonable persons here already several times. No need to repeat this all again over and over, but the most important conclusion is that this whole discussion, including the underlying completely irrelevant map and potential consequences of the theory, are of no relevance to the history of the Bismarck saga. Basically we have two persons fighting for a completely irrelevant theory by using unsubstantied interpretations and lies all the time. If it is because they don't have the capabilities to conduct and understand historical/scientific research, or because they are blinded by ideology, or a combination of both, has to be judged by someone else.

[wadinga]

Hello P Gollin,


So you and Bill...……………………………….(Shakespeare, that is) are in complete agreement.


It's Macbeth by the way.


All the best

wadinga

[HMSVF]

Hello P Gollin,


So you and Bill...……………………………….(Shakespeare, that is) are in complete agreement.


It's Macbeth by the way.


All the best

wadinga

‘Nothing will come of nothing.’

- King lear


Enjoy your vacation Mr Jurens.



Best wishes


HMSVF

[northcape]

Much ado about nothing.

[Byron Angel]

Can we come back to the topic of this thread, the Court Martial ?

- - -

Forgive me, Alberto, but not just yet.

I have Santarini's book and have read it. His analysis is profuse with a great deal of statistical detail and calculation, but it omits some important facts and considerations that merit mention -

1 - No one knows really how many hits Bismarck achieved on Hood. Santarini accepts the British board of inquiry conclusion of one or possibly two hits, a number that appears to me to have been derived by the board's acceptance of only those cases absolutely and indisputably confirmed by a wide consensus of witnesses. Testimony by the Prince of Wales witnesses very much leaves open the possibility that more than one or two hits, perhaps as many as four hits, may well have actually been scored.

2 - In the first five minutes or so of her engagement with Bismarck, Prince of Wales was effectively firing unopposed - a big gunnery advantage. Santarini appears to ignore this factor.

3 - After shifting fire from Hood at 1601, Bismarck hit Prince of Wales three times in approximately four minutes before Prince of Wales broke off the action by evading away under a smoke screen. Prince of Wales did not approach this degree of shooting efficiency at any time during the battle.

Prince of Wales certainly performed beyond all reasonable expectations given her raw crew and uncertain main battery mechanical situation, but she did not match the performance of Bismarck in this engagement.

B

[pgollin]

Hello everybody,

pgollin wrote: "The King's Regulations gives the detail and applicable procedures and rules."

So it should be easy for him to post the relevant King's Regs articles related to the "misconduct in presence of the enemy" (the actual topic here, because we are not speaking of... ship members' drunkenness or salute to superiors or duelling.... ), but he is unable, just because the King's Regs are taking care of what is not already specified in the (much more) important Naval Discipline Act (Articles of War) in terms of discipline.

I can suggest him to read art. 26 of his King's Regs BEFORE speaking again, showing his self-opinionated and well recognized ignorance.
He can now post the relevant King's Regs articles detailing the misconduct for cowardice or negligence; in alternative, I will post from King's Regs, just to have the pleasure to rubbish ONCE AGAIN this poorly educated guy.

................

You do realise that you ;

a: Just shot down your claims about the "Articles of War"

b: Are now trying to get others to do your work for you ?

----------------

By the way which edition of The King's Regulations are you using ?

.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

form the above post it's clear that "pgollin" is unable (or unwilling, that is even worse....) to post ANY articles from the "king's regs" that relates to the "misconduct in presence of the enemy". I understand he has no dignity enough to simply admit his wrong statement.

As the "Articles of War" (from the "Naval Discipline Act", part I article 2 http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm) fully cover this aspect of the discipline, I have to do NO work anymore, he should do his homework to show how on earth his favorite "King's Regs" regulate the "misconduct in presence of the enemy" .... but he cannot, obviously....


Bye, Alberto

[Alberto Virtuani]

Byron Angel wrote: "Forgive me, Alberto, but not just yet"

Hi Byron, I agree but
1) we don't know how many hits exactly, AFAIK minimum 1, maximum 3 according to witnesses (and excluding the PG hit on the boat deck).
2) neither McMullen nor Jasper seem to have been impaired by enemy fire in the direction of their gunnery action as well....
3) between 5:56 and 6:00 (4 minutes) PoW hit Bismarck 4 times, then after 6:00 her sharp turns obviously affected her precision.

I think Adm.Santarini conclusions regarding PoW gunnery performance are quite fair.


Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Byron Angel wrote: "Forgive me, Alberto, but not just yet"

Hi Byron, I agree but
1) we don't know how many hits exactly, AFAIK minimum 1, maximum 3 according to witnesses (and excluding the PG hit on the boat deck).
2) neither McMullen nor Jasper seem to have been impaired by enemy fire in the direction of their gunnery action as well....
3) between 5:56 and 6:00 (4 minutes) PoW hit Bismarck 4 times, then after 6:00 her sharp turns obviously affected her precision.

I think Adm.Santarini conclusions regarding PoW gunnery performance are quite fair.


Bye, Alberto

3) = 3 x 14in hits.

[pgollin]

Hello everybody,

form the above post it's clear that "pgollin" is unable (or unwilling, that is even worse....) to post ANY articles from the "king's regs" that relates to the "misconduct in presence of the enemy". I understand he has no dignity enough to simply admit his wrong statement.

As the "Articles of War" (from the "Naval Discipline Act", part I article 2 http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm) fully cover this aspect of the discipline, I have to do NO work anymore, he should do his homework to show how on earth his favorite "King's Regs" regulate the "misconduct in presence of the enemy" .... but he cannot, obviously....


Bye, Alberto

That is truly hilarious.

You ignore the fact that your endless parroting of the phrase "Articles of War" is wrong, and instead of looking up the King's Regulations you want someone else to do it for you.

You quote of The Articles of War is NOT the detail required - the Regulations give the details. It is like quoting the Commandment "Thou shalt not Kill", instead of the particular charges and requirements in a Parliamentary Bill covering crime. LEARN the difference. Learn the facts, and learn the details.

You keep "forgetting" that it is YOU who are making these claims, and it is for you to look up the facts.

( By the way, you also "forgot" to say which edition of The King's Regulations you have seen - oh ! That's right you haven't, because you don't understand.

.