The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

HMSVF
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF »

I notice that I haven't seen Paul Cadogan or "Cag" for a long whilst, two thoroughly enjoyable posters of political manner

Should be "polite" not political! :lol:
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: Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:03 am Hello everybody,

I'm deeply sorry that a very good forum has become a bar fight stage, due to the personal insults that we have received by some RN hooligans, unable to accept the reality of facts, and UNABLE to counter it with an alternative scenario.

They quibble over details (05:52 is not 05:42), ignoring all other evidences (courses, speeds, bearing geometry, Busch distance and Ellis confirmation of them), totally unqualified to build a credible battlemap and thus defining "bullshit" :kaput: the one made available for free (published since 2005, in its first version, then in 2017 and further refined here) by Antonio (Mr.Dunmunro)....
They desperately beg the "silver bullet" that will be used just to rubbish THEM, not to sell more books, instead of admitting that there are already more than enough evidence for the threat to the two timid officers, as all serious historians have confirmed. (Mr.Wadinga)
They add no historical value whatsoever, but they ridiculously "pontificate" about "forum etiquette" after having come in ONLY to insult (northcape) :lol:
They come in the forum pretending to be indignant for their heroes "resizing", but they avoid to condemn the ones who (pgollin), starting 2013, insulted personally other forum members, starting this "escalation" (Reubs64).


I am really disgusted by now, but I do think it's time to call things with their name, from a military standpoint and to recognize that a "humiliating defeat" was "sugar-coated" in order to become a "tactical retreat".


Bye, Alberto
You seem to think that if you tell a lie enough times that it will make it true. All it does is make you a serial liar.

Ellis's memoirs are hopelessly muddled and confused and are useless as a reference. Ellis tells us that Suffolk was at 18k yds at 0552:30 (referenced to PoW's salvo chart). Working back to 0542 that places Suffolk at ~3000 yds from Bismarck, not ~18k yds as per your reading of Busch. Ellis's memoirs in no way supports Busch; the fact that you and A refuse to admit this glaringly obvious problem with Ellis casts a very bright light on your ability and/or intent to separate fact from fiction. Your use of Tovey's memoirs in a similar way reinforces the previous point.

There is no historical evidence to support a supposition of cowardice against either Leach or Wake-Walker. Nor against Lutjens either, when the facts are carefully examined, despite your clinging to the theory that he froze on Bismarck and delayed opening fire.

Your last sentence is incomprehensible. The world's media reported the outcome of the battle from nearly the moment it occurred and the motion picture, "Sink the Bismarck" recreates the actual battle with no "sugar coating".
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: Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:36 am version of facts imposed (as normal) by the winners is by now proven FALSE..... End of story.
The battle reconstruction of Antonio is UNCHALLENGED up to now (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231) and very different from the official British version.
The incorrect statements in the official reports are well PROVEN (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799) and who wrote them was a LIAR as Mr.Dunmunro has politely cleared to us all.
Neither link, above, seems germaine, but in any event, it is not incumbent upon anyone to present a comprehensive reconstruction of the battle in order to say the current fantasy by A&A is wrong.
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 Nilsson,

you wrote :
That’s a matter of opinion. I think Bob Winklareth believes pretty much the same in regard of his theory.
Now I am sure you remember who demolished Bob Winklareth incorrect reversed photo theory by producing an alternative re-construction that was considered ( and still is ) to be better and more precise by the most, including several websites ( like this one ) and even copied and published on a Bismarck book by a recognized " copycat " from Denmark without asking any permission.

Now, correct me if I am wrong but I do not recall having seen so far any better battle re-construction that at least can be considered an alternative to my one. Am I right ?

I only saw a pathetic trial by one of the " hooligan/denier " here in time ago trying to challenge my one with an old Schmalenbach map absolutely incorrect.

I only read doubts, deniers and disagreements ... missed responses to very obvious questions, ... lately only this approach here in.

Of course, ... because responding there is only one possibility, ... so people prefer not to respond and run away, ... like for the geometry and bearings and you know what I mean, ... to come back later with more disagreements based on nothing.

If anyone as a better battle re-construction, just show it ... I have no problems to accept a better work than mine, ... if anyone can produce a better Norfolk and Suffolk tracks map, ... just do it, ... and show it to me and everybody else, ... so we can compare them.

Keep on saying that others work is not correct, ... without producing anything better, ... is just useless.

When I challenged Winklareth, ... Dr G. Elder told me : " You have to do a better job to demonstrate his one is not correct ".

I did it !

So far here in I saw nothing comparable, ... only deniers and disagreements, ... but no works, no maps, no geometry, no mathematics, etc etc ... able to stand close to the work I did.

One day surely my work will be improved by somebody, ... lets see how long it will take for someone to do it.

Bye Antonio
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 )
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by northcape »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 6:44 pm
Now, correct me if I am wrong but I do not recall having seen so far any better battle re-construction that at least can be considered an alternative to my one. Am I right ?
No you are not. Your reconstruction does not take any errors into account. It possibly is the most elaborate one, but that does not make it the most accurate (if you mean that by "best"). It is a misunderstanding that by using many data, you will also get a good result.
Other people are more smart / educated and understand this (garbage in - garbage out). It is simply useless to construct a detailed battle map given the uncertainties in the original data. Your nap is nothing but a very sophisticated fantasy. It maybe right, but thousands of other possibilities have the same probability to be right.
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,

... and here we go !

Just as I wrote above, it did not take much to see the usual " hooligan/denier " coming to respond by the usual disagreement and no value add at all, ... neither one data data or an indication, ... absolutely nothing.

The only intent is to discredit and deny, ... for the well known reasons of a side taken approach, ... started by somebody time ago and now becoming a real strategy from that side.

I do not pretend to have a comparable work like I did, ... from those very limited persons, ... that have already showed their enormous limits in mathematics, geometry and map selection to try to challenge my work, ... but at least one data or an indication of where something needs to be corrected or changed.

The reality is that they do not have a clue, ... nothing, ... just the need to state that my work is not correct, ... because at the end is putting on the right position and timing the Royal navy warships, ... and that for them is not acceptable for the very well known reasons.

So, bottom line no use of the PoW gunnery Official data or the Rowell Official map, ... no use of the official bearings for Norfolk and Suffolk, ... no use of Capt Leach official report data and timings.

Much better to use the timing and events from the Adm Tovey dispatches and Sir L. Kennedy " novel " Pursuit, ... YES, ... those are much, much better for them.

Pathetic, ... really shameful, ... from somebody writing here in that he was looking for the truth, ... in reality they are acting like Franz Joseph about the Mayerling event : " Everything is better than the truth ! ".

Bye Antonio
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 Bonomi wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 6:44 pm Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

you wrote :
That’s a matter of opinion. I think Bob Winklareth believes pretty much the same in regard of his theory.
Now I am sure you remember who demolished Bob Winklareth incorrect reversed photo theory by producing an alternative re-construction that was considered ( and still is ) to be better and more precise by the most, including several websites ( like this one ) and even copied and published on a Bismarck book by a recognized " copycat " from Denmark without asking any permission.

Now, correct me if I am wrong but I do not recall having seen so far any better battle re-construction that at least can be considered an alternative to my one. Am I right ?

....
Your reconstruction was really a fine thing....as long as no-one wants to take it too "litterally". It's still a good (maybe even the best) "big picture" and better than Winklareth's map in any case.

On the other hand your reconstruction was not necessary at all (and probably not sufficient) to "demolish" Bob's theory.....his theory was refuted by a few stills from the battle footage. Therefore it's also not necessary to create an own battle map to realize that your present reconstruction can't be right. There are more than enough very reasonable counter-arguments you are not willing to take into account, let alone to accept. The bottom line is that you've refused any constructive criticism and you're sticking to your opinion like Winklareth.
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 »

Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "Ellis's memoirs in no way supports Busch"
Poor Mr.Dunmunro, he seems to "forget" (possibly an "innocent error") that SF distance from Bismarck was calculated and discussed by Antonio BEFORE founding Ellis'autobiography, thanks to his DoD (cross bearings taken from both sides) and to course/speed of SF from 4:47 on.... :negative:

Busch confirmed the distance calculated geometrically. :D

Ellis put just the "tombstone" over the "novel" accounted by Kennedy. :stop:

Waiting for Mr.Dunmunro (or any other forum member...) alternative and complete battle reconstruction(I guess we will wait forever....), needed to counter a complete scenario presented by Antonio, matching most evidences,
who is the sneaky "liar" here ? :kaput:
His repeated insults show his anger for having been found "naked" in front of everybody, due to his stubborn denial attitude.


HMSVF wrote: "I suspect that a lot of the anger is over the use of the word "coward"."
Hi HMSVF,
no, the anger started with the use of the word "idiot" used in 2013 against Antonio when he had his "intuition" by a poorly educated person (pgollin) here (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iot#p54913), and continued during these years with joking, mocking and insinuations about "stupidity", "revisionism", "liars", etc. from other forum members.
This very first insult was never condemned by ANY of the "good respectful and educated guys", possibly because they were not willing to listen at any accusation against these two timid officers and preferred to ignore the provocation.....
You have recently personally been asked by me to explicitly condemn at least the last unprovoked insults (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iar#p79032) and to distinguish yourself from these poor people, but you did not. Therefore, please don't even try to play the role of a neutral person anymore, because unfortunately you are not. :negative:


By now I feel free (thanks to Mr.Dunmunro kind explanation http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iar#p79035) to use the terms that more are appropriate for an officer running away in presence of the enemy and another, worse one, refusing to engage the same enemy...


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:48 am, edited 3 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,

you wrote :
There are more than enough very reasonable counter-arguments you are not willing to take into account, let alone to accept.

The bottom line is that you've refused any constructive criticism and you're sticking to your opinion like Winklareth.
Even if this thread is intended to the trials for Court Martial story between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey regarding Wake-Walker and Leach, ... I will respond to this statement.

Where are the counter-arguments ? Please provide me your list so I can evaluate them with lot of pleasure.

What do I have refused as constructive criticism ? Asked by whom ? When ?

I can list the refusal to my questions by many here in, ... even lately, ... but I have not refused ( intentionally ) anything, ... maybe I have not seen it, ... so please ask it to em directly again in case.

If you recall, ... the constructive criticism here in have been one of the main reasons fro my presence here in this forum, ... and in the past on other forums, ... and I have been thankful for the help received in writings at the bottom of my DS article on 2005, ... officially.

But that was the time when no HMS ship tracks were under evaluation, ... no PoW retreat and no heavy cruisers real distances, ... so the cooperation was very good, ... now things have changed, ... and not for my initiative.

Bye Antonio
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 Bonomi wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:49 am
Even if this thread is intended to the trials for Court Martial story between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey regarding Wake-Walker and Leach, ... I will respond to this statement.

Where are the counter-arguments ? Please provide me your list so I can evaluate them with lot of pleasure.

What do I have refused as constructive criticism ? Asked by whom ? When ?
If you're really interested, I suggest you to reread all threads related to your cover up theory.
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,

I will read it once again, ... and see if there are interesting inputs.

Now we can move to the proper threads in case of need.

As far as this thread goes, I think we are done.

The May 31st, 1941 letter ( responding the Pound May 28th, 1941 ) beginning this story is now available, ... the final October 1941 rewarding by the King too.

What happened in between is written into this 130 thread pages, ... if one is interested can find what he is looking for.

Bye Antonio
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 )
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:21 pm .

..... (e.g. I have not seen yet posted from him the "misconduct in presence of the enemy" relevant chapters for Leach and Wake-Walker from his "King's Regs", while we have posted already all the relevant "Articles of War" from the "Naval Discipline Act".... :lol: ). ......



Rather confusing but I ASSUME that what that is trying to say is that yes, you and Antonio got it wrong, and you should have been referring to The King's Regulations".

You really should know what you are writing about.

.
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 »

@pgollin: :lol: :lol: :lol:

An insulting guy, even unable to post here the articles relevant to this discussion (= misconduct in presence of the enemy) from his pretended "King's Regs" version (mostly dealing with minor details not contained in the Articles of War), while the applicable main "Articles of War" in 1941 are available for everybody: http://www.pdavis.nl/NDA1866.htm (see Part I, Article 2).

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)
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin »

.

You really are showing your ignorance. You are "hooked" on general principles (The Articles of War) and NOT the actual law that would have applied (The King's Regulations). The King's Regulations gives the detail and applicable procedures and rules.

LEARN about what you claim.

.
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: Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:40 am Hello everybody,
Dunmunro wrote: "Ellis's memoirs in no way supports Busch"
Poor Mr.Dunmunro, he seems to "forget" (possibly an "innocent error") that SF distance from Bismarck was calculated and discussed by Antonio BEFORE founding Ellis'autobiography, thanks to his DoD (cross bearings taken from both sides) and to course/speed of SF from 4:47 on.... :negative:

Busch confirmed the distance calculated geometrically. :D

Ellis put just the "tombstone" over the "novel" accounted by Kennedy. :stop:

Waiting for Mr.Dunmunro (or any other forum member...) alternative and complete battle reconstruction(I guess we will wait forever....), needed to counter a complete scenario presented by Antonio, matching most evidences,
who is the sneaky "liar" here ? :kaput:
His repeated insults show his anger for having been found "naked" in front of everybody, due to his stubborn denial attitude.


HMSVF wrote: "I suspect that a lot of the anger is over the use of the word "coward"."
Hi HMSVF,
no, the anger started with the use of the word "idiot" used in 2013 against Antonio when he had his "intuition" by a poorly educated person (pgollin) here (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iot#p54913), and continued during these years with joking, mocking and insinuations about "stupidity", "revisionism", "liars", etc. from other forum members.
This very first insult was never condemned by ANY of the "good respectful and educated guys", possibly because they were not willing to listen at any accusation against these two timid officers and preferred to ignore the provocation.....
You have recently personally been asked by me to explicitly condemn at least the last unprovoked insults (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iar#p79032) and to distinguish yourself from these poor people, but you did not. Therefore, please don't even try to play the role of a neutral person anymore, because unfortunately you are not. :negative:


By now I feel free (thanks to Mr.Dunmunro kind explanation http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iar#p79035) to use the terms that more are appropriate for an officer running away in presence of the enemy and another, worse one, refusing to engage the same enemy...


Bye, Alberto
Ellis in no way confirms anything that Antonio has worked on, and his original theory didn't even take into account Suffolk's 360d turn from 0442-0550.



Spare us the phony troll outrage over insults. We've been laughing off yours for years, and we even laughed off this post:

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 690#p60690
Locked