The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Mac,
this is the proof that he was removed by Wake-Walker, and we can easily realize why based on above discussion......

from Capt.Phillips declaration at the second Hood board of inquiry: "....After a few minutes of action I observed what appeared to me to be a hit, which I should estimate to be on or near the starboard above water torpedo tubes. This hit, which was quite separate in time from the firing of HOOD's salvoes, had the appearance of a brilliant splash of flame, as I have tried to indicate in rough sketch Phase I. I remarked on this to Admiral Wake-Walker and suggested that she had been hit near the torpedo tubes."

However, this "health problem" can be interpreted as a coincidence.....

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

I think you missed to mark "estimate"

Hi Mac,
this is the proof that he was removed by Wake-Walker, and we can easily realize why based on above discussion......

from Capt.Phillips declaration at the second Hood board of inquiry: "....After a few minutes of action I observed what appeared to me to be a hit, which I should estimate to be on or near the starboard above water torpedo tubes. This hit, which was quite separate in time from the firing of HOOD's salvoes, had the appearance of a brilliant splash of flame, as I have tried to indicate in rough sketch Phase I. I remarked on this to Admiral Wake-Walker and suggested that she had been hit near the torpedo tubes."

Bye, Alberto

Removed to become director of one of twelve divisions of the naval war staff of the Admiralty? That's quite a punishment.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi Marc,
from the same deposition (without any "estimation") :

Capt. Phillips: "NORFOLK was fine on the starboard quarter of our heavy ships, both of which were plainly visible from near the waterline upwards."

I have asked what was the mission and the operative tasks of the direction given to Capt.Phillips, but no answer yet......its composition, as per your posted image, looks a bit mysterious to me......

Anyway, if it was evaluated that this officer was "ill", the Admiralty would not have given him anyway an important role during the war, am I wrong ?

As I said, the interpretation of this fact can vary from removal as punishment to normal alternation......

Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

All,

This is a wonderful smokescreen being thrown up about Capt Phillip's subsequent employment, to divert attention away from unanswerable points, but it is of no significance whatsoever. Two years commanding a warship at sea in time of war deserves a bit of a rest. RN cruisers did not sit around in harbour chipping, painting and polishing their jackboots for months and months unlike Axis vessels eg Prinz Eugen. All senior officers might expect to engage in demanding and less demanding shore based positions during their careers.

What is not being addressed is Leading Writer Collard specifically saying Hood was too far away to see the tubes "below the horizon" confirming WW and Kelburn. Many other witnesses say the details were not visible due to distance and Phillips' observations are the anomaly, not the norm. Also not addressed is Phillips' words about where Norfolk bore from Hood, confirmed by another witness saying Hood was Red 025 degrees from Norfolk.

There is no question of "awards for perjury", because Balmer did not get one, and Pinchin was recommended over two months before he allegedly did so.

The level of evidence for this "Kangaroo Court" is set pretty low if merely mooring your ship near another is compelling evidence worth a photo that a Great Conspiracy took place. More smokescreen.

Also not addressed is the matter of why a small scale map dated 5th August as part of Wake-Walker's Report is described as "original plot" when the real tactical plot Pinchin produced, and was given a citation for creating has not yet surfaced. Tiny excepts of this map included in Wake-Walker's report, a necessarily crude representation , because of its tiny scale, of Norfolk's track have been presented, as if they are truer, original record when they are merely a generalization, distorting reality. Norfolk's track on "the Plot" is described as traced, presumably from the real tactical plot, and if the 5th August map disagrees it is because it is wrong due to its scale and mere illustrative purposes for the Report.

Why is Collard wrong, why is Balmer wrong, and where is the true tactical plot Pinchin created?

All the best

wadinga

[Herr Nilsson]

Hi Marc,

I have asked what was the mission and the operative tasks of this direction, but no answer yet......its composition, as per your post, looks a bit mysterious to me......

From Roskill's War at Sea

The importance to maritime strategy of the possession and security of the bases from which our forces must work has already been mentioned; the consequences of the insecurity of certain bases will appear later in our story. Here it must be mentioned that even before the outbreak of war a large number of pressing problems and unfulfilled requirements for the defence of naval bases and commercial ports were arising, and the Local Defence Division of the Naval Staff was formed in May 1939 to carry the responsibility for assessing their priority and for meeting them.

Anyway, if it was evaluated that this officer was "ill", the Admiralty would not have given him anyway an important role during the war, am I wrong ?

Not necessarily. It's just speculation, but Wake-Walker explicitly mentions "a long period of bad weather at sea and harbour". If one is a bad sailor, he can fulfill his duty on board for a certain time, but finally he will be affected by it. OTOH he doesn't have any problems on land at all.

[Herr Nilsson]

What is not being addressed is Leading Writer Collard specifically saying Hood was too far away to see the tubes "below the horizon" confirming WW and Kelburn. Many other witnesses say the details were not visible due to distance and Phillips' observations are the anomaly, not the norm. Also not addressed is Phillips' words about where Norfolk bore from Hood, confirmed by another witness saying Hood was Red 025 degrees from Norfolk.

Phillips said:

159. You say you saw the hull of the HOOD. Could you say if the armoured doors over the tubes were open or closed?

She was too far off.

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Herr Nilsson: Hi Marc, it's an interpretation, and I respect t. My interpretation, due to Capt. Phillips deposition, is different.

@Wadinga:
Capt. Phillips observations are not the anomaly, the anomaly are WW's modified declarations......

from Mr. I.R. Mason, Signal Boatswain, R.N. deposition "130. Could you see the ship's side in the vicinity of the turrets at all?
Yes, I could definitely see the side."

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... tm#Toswill

Bye, Alberto

[Herr Nilsson]

@Herr Nilsson: Hi Marc, it's an interpretation, and I respect t. My interpretation, due to Capt. Phillips deposition, is different.

It's just what I expected.

Italy has a much higher corruption perception index than Germany or the UK, the whole dispute is probably just a matter of socialisation. !!No offence intended!!

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Herr Nilsson: I agree: a famous Italian politician said once: "Thinking bad of someone is a sin, but you are almost always right in doing so....:"

For me, many clues make an evidence (albeit not usable in front of a court...).

That's why I would have preferred a formal and serious RN inquiry to investigate the behaviour of these officers, also to allow them to explain what they did (or did not). Wartime priorities prevented it.

Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

many thanks for that precious input about Capt A.J.L. Phillips ... ... which basically, ... and once again, ... confirmed my intuitions.

Now I like to have the original document : can you share it ?

It was too obvious that Capt Phillips had to pay for what he did at the Second Board of Inquiry, ... and this adds up to the shameful conduct about ViceAdm Holland memory, ... a very high price for the war propaganda needs.

I intentionally avoid personal comments at this point both on the above evidence as well as on some other statements I have read above.

No offence intended !!!

@ Wadinga,

you should try to explain me why you trust more a RearAdmiral changing from 10 to 15 sea miles a previously signed deposition in front of a board of inquiry, ... producing an incorrect map, ... instead of a Captain confirming his own declaration twice.

You should try to convince me that what Wake-Walker did soon after to Phillips, was not directly related to his deposition at the second board of inquiry.

If at this point, you have not yet understood what happened between May 30th, 1941 and June 5th, 1941, ... in Scapa Flow, ... you should better avoid to keep on writing about this topic.

Talking about maps, ... you have " The Plot " made by Pinchin, ... and I have showed and proved you well enough how incorrect it is, ... I do not have all the other personal maps he used to make that " masterpiece " ... but I think that is shameful enough ... when you think it has been used as attachment to save a Flag Officer from deserved troubles.

When I will release what Pinchin, with the help of Kelburn under Wake-Walker command did the night before the battle on board the HMS Norfolk, ... you will be able to realize something more ... even more shameful ... if ever possible.

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Phillips from ADM 192-96-188



Apparently he had a breakdown in 1942.

He retired in 1944 and was promoted to rear-admiral in retirement. Phillips died in 1979.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi all,
apparently, he was just removed from his command by Wake-Walker and Tovey, as correctly suspected by Antonio Bonomi.......

phillips.jpg (51.06 KiB) Viewed 1093 times

I know hierarchically this is simply the usual procedure, but the fact to see together the signature and concurrence of both is just confirming that he was not forgiven for confirming the real (as per Antonio'ìs recent researches and new battlemap ) distance of Norfolk from Hood.....

I know, for someone I'm too much suspicious now......but it's difficult not to be after all the "innocent errors" that surfaced in the last years on this very forum.....

Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Outstanding Duncan,

It was too obvious that Capt Phillips had to pay for what he did at the Second Board of Inquiry

Yes, W-W was so unhappy with Phillips' witness evidence, that the Captain was immediately thrown off his ship- a full 6 months later- with a glowing report!

That is after having received his award, oddly enough for allegedly contradicting W-W, unlike Paymaster Balmer, who supported the Great Conspiracy, but didn't get an award.

This is almost as embarrassing as the Barham/Bahram cock-up

Another witness was Paymaster Commander R. Bailey, R.N.

for the "HOOD" and "PRINCE OF WALES", as I saw them they were still silhouetted against the sky and they both appeared as small black silhouettes.

The impression at that distance was that the hull itself was glowing and that there were no flames shooting out. This might have been caused by the ship being below the horizon.

64. You have told us the glow of the original fire did not appear to extend above the boat deck. If that is so how did you see it?
I can only think that it was an optical illusion, due to the distance but the appearance was as though the ship herself was glowing in that section.

Ah, but of course Paymaster Bailey was another one of W-W’s “bought” witnesses, except that he too didn’t get a medal.

I'm not surprised Alberto is willing to blindly support this gauzy, desperate mud-slinging campaign as it staggers from one embarrassment to the next, if he chooses to adhere to the principles of Italian politicians. In my ignorance I can only think of three: Benito Mussolini, Silvio Belusconi and La Cicciolina

All the best

wadinga

[dunmunro]

Hi all,
apparently, he was just removed from his command by Wake-Walker and Tovey, as correctly suspected by Antonio Bonomi.......

phillips.jpg

I know hierarchically this is simply the usual procedure, but the fact to see together the signature and concurrence of both is just confirming that he was not forgiven for confirming the real (as per Antonio'ìs recent researches and new battlemap ) distance of Norfolk from Hood.....

I know, for someone I'm too much suspicious now......but it's difficult not to be after all the "innocent errors" that surfaced in the last years on this very forum.....

Bye, Alberto

It seems much more likely that he removed himself or he was removed by a medical officer. The fact that he retired at age 51 after getting very good performance reviews indicates that he probably felt himself to be unsuitable for the strain of command, and/or he had other health issues.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hi all,
apart from Duncan, who is still expressing his point of view in a composed way (even if I disagree with him), I have to notice that other people, overwhelmed by the evidence of the removal of Capt.Phillips done by WW and Tovey in January 1942, are just able to address their annoyance mentioning tasteless comments about Italians.....

Of course, they can be sure that I will never use the same kind of too easy arguments against them.

I think everybody has understood how things happened for Capt.Phillips.

Bye, Alberto