The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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 :
Thank you. As I wrote before I think it‘s illogical. And it doesn’t work, because Tovey "heard no more about it".
Maybe he heard no more about it ( the subject being the Court Martial ) , ... but surely he did a lot in writings as a direct consequence ( the " Cover Up " ) , ... intentionally altering all the reports into his dispatches ( July 1941 ), ... that have been accepted in signing by the Admiralty Board ( Sir Barnes letter - September 1941 ), ... and by the politicians up to Sir W. Churchill, referencing the ADM 205/10 pages we know in details now.

Again, it is illogical for you, ... surely not for me and many, ... many others.

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
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: "You have the log entries from all 3 RN ships"
And Tovey had all PoW maps and (mostly) had already issued a May 30 report almost telling the truth (around 6:02).
Was he misled by totally imprecise (and contradictory among themselves) log entries instead of trusting PoW maps ? :negative:
He just astutely took the most "convenient" timing (supported by W-W report) to sugar-coat the otherwise very poor fact that Leach decision to retreat happened just after 1 minute fight alone.

Dunmunro wrote: "the key fact is that the triangle of doom was clearly incorrect"
No, the key fact is that the triangle of doom may have been not perfect, but much less wrong than the shameful Pinchin's Plot produced to sustain W-W intentional lie.
Antonio's reconstruction put NF at 22 to 23 K yards from Hood at 6:00, more in line with the initial declarations/observations.
However, W-W felt the need to correct these at the second board to move NF well out of her 8" guns maximum range during the battle.

Dunmunro wrote: "Ellis doesn't support what you stated: "
Geometry (cross-bearings from the "DoD") fixes the position of SF to around 9 to 10 sm from enemy around 05:35 - 05:40, before the 360° circle, supported by Busch reported message from PG (176 hm) and confirmed by Ellis (18.000 yards) (Ellis just wrote "at open fire" instead of "shortly before open fire", this is his only "error").... :negative:
Of course, if someone still prefers Pinchin's Plot distances :shock: , he has to produce a credible and complete battlemap to support his theory. :stop:

Dunmunro wrote: "The turret jam obviously happened before the times stated in the 3 RN ship's logs"
:lol: Very, very funny! :lol:
Leach report clearly explained to Tovey when the turret jammed = after the decision to disengage. As above, Tovey astutely chose the most "convenient" version to embellish the story told by Leach (apparently considered too poor by the CiC HF himself after the letter/phone call with Pound and the menace of BofI/Court Martial)...... :lol:


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)
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: Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:58 am
Dunmunro wrote: "Ellis doesn't support what you stated: "
Geometry (cross-bearings from the DoD) fixes the position of SF to around 9 to 10 sm from enemy around 05:35 - 05:40, before the 360° circle, supported by Busch reported message from PG (15° 176 hm) and confirmed by Ellis (18.000 yards) (Ellis just wrote "at open fire" instead of "immediately before open fire", this is his only "error").... :negative:
Of course, if someone still prefers Pinchin's Plot distances :shock: , he has to produce a credible and complete battlemap to support his theory. :stop:


Ellis states very clearly:
It snowed during the night, and the wind rose, About: dawn it
cleared to the southeast and southward, and we could see ice blink
to the north and west, But we still could not see any other British
ship, The Norfolk was still miles out of sight and gunrange when
the action between the Germans and the Hood and Prince of Wales
began, Of our battleships we could see only the funnel tops and
the gun flashes.

The morning of this brief, disastrous, battle was May 24th.

When fire was opened, the Suffolk was roughly 18,000 yards
astern of the enemy, ready to "flank mark" 'our heavy shisp'
fall-of-shot, We had set watch on the appropriate radio set and
frequency, and called the Hood repeatedly, but without response.
We were still calling the Hood when she blew up...
Ellis says what he says...He doesn't state that "prior to", or "immediately before", or "even 10 minutes before" ; he states that "... when fire was opened, the Suffolk was roughly 18000 yds astern of the enemy..."

Apparently you and A can commune with the dead to clarify what they meant to say. :pray: :lol: :lol: :lol: and perhaps you can drum up lots of consulting contracts that way :!:

You can both go into business as the " Medium historians" who can clarify what the departed really meant to say.... :shock:

What a joke... you just make stuff up when needed and call it history.

If the DoD was correct then Suffolk and Norfolk would be clearly visible to one another... :stubborn:
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,

I'm very happy to see that finally Mr.Dunmunro has NOTHING to oppose to all my points above (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 031#p79029), apart from the very single Ellis error stating that the distance of 18,000 yards was at "open fire" precise instant. :D

Unfortunately for him simple geometry (a DoD that he is unable to counter, except saying that visibility HAD TO be perfectly symmetrical and good enough to allow NF and SF to see each other from 13,5 -14 sm :shock: ) and Busch (a clear measurement of 176 hm from German side) confirm the distance being around 9-10 sm between 05:35 and 05:42 (thus "shortly before open fire"), as per Ellis autobiography, that, despite the above error, explains clearly why he decided to turn north his ship instead of engaging the enemy after the "enemy in sight" messages from BC1 and NF.


Joking and mocking from him will not change the fact that he is UNABLE to propose any alternative battlemap, simply because the battle of Denmark Strait was one, fought by ships that could not fly, for a well known duration and there is no way to enlarge the battlefield: even an expert like Pinchin could not respect the bearings between NF and SF in his attempt to provide W-W (and Ellis) with further justifications. :negative:


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)
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: Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:15 am confirm the distance being around 9-10 sm between 05:35 and 05:42 (thus "shortly before open fire"), as per Ellis autobiography
Shameless liar.
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,

another insulting person....when left without arguments, as anyone can easily judge from above posts.

Have the "deniers" agreed among them on such a low strategy or is this the independent result of their poor education ? :lol:


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)
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: Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:27 pm Hello everybody,

another insulting person....when left without arguments, as anyone can easily judge from above posts.

Have the "deniers" agreed among them on such a low strategy or is this the independent result of their poor education ? :lol:


Bye, Alberto
You've been caught stating that Ellis says something that he didn't state and you repeat this assertion when presented with the facts.
Calling you a liar is not an insult, when when it's true.

Ellis:
When fire was opened, the Suffolk was roughly 18,000 yards
astern of the enemy
Hood opened fire at 0552:30 using the PoW salvo chart as a time reference. Ellis says nothing about where Suffolk was 10 or 15 minutes prior to opening fire.

Anyone who's reading this forum can see this for themselves.
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,

this shameless guy has posted a fragment of my post (he usually posts the full length posts, I was thinking just because totally unable to use a PC.... :lol: ) instead of the entire text, where I clearly said that Ellis is in error (and must not be taken literally when saying "open fire") in this specific case.... :negative:

However, geometry, Busch and Ellis are in agreement about SF distance, while Mr.Dunmunro prefers to trust Pinchin's "homework" because he is unable to present any different battlemap to counter Antonio's one and too arrogant and biased to accept it..... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Bye, Alberto


P.S. His post has been duly reported to the webmaster, we will see whether "shameful liar" is a polite word in his opinion....

P.P.S. Mr.Dunmunro is of course not interested anymore in speaking about the several wrong statement corrected by my post http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 036#p79029. Again shameless in front of everybody.
"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)
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: Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:40 pm Hello everybody,

this shameless guy has posted a fragment of my post (he usually posts the full length posts, I was thinking because unable to use PC.... :lol: ) instead of the entire post, where I clearly said that Ellis is in error (and must not be taken literally) in this specific case.... :negative:

However, geometry, Busch and Ellis are in agreement about SF distance, while Mr.Dunmunro prefers to trust Pinchin work because he is unable to present any different battlemap..... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Bye, Alberto


BTW, his post has been duly reported to the webmaster, we will see whether "liar" is a polite word in his opinion....
Your misuse of Ellis was pointed out to you and I previously posted a long extract from Ellis:
It snowed during the night, and the wind rose, About: dawn it
cleared to the southeast and southward, and we could see ice blink
to the north and west, But we still could not see any other British
ship, The Norfolk was still miles out of sight and gunrange when
the action between the Germans and the Hood and Prince of Wales
began, Of our battleships we could see only the funnel tops and
the gun flashes.

The morning of this brief, disastrous, battle was May 24th.

When fire was opened, the Suffolk was roughly 18,000 yards
astern of the enemy, ready to "flank mark" 'our heavy shisp'
fall-of-shot, We had set watch on the appropriate radio set and
frequency, and called the Hood repeatedly, but without response.
We were still calling the Hood when she blew up...
Ellis says nothing about where Suffolk was 10-15 minutes prior to opening fire, however, he states where she was at the moment " ...When fire was opened..."

You've been caught out making a bold faced lie and you refuse to retract the lie.
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,


someone wrote :
Calling you a liar is not an insult, when it's true.
Shocked.jpeg
Shocked.jpeg (7.39 KiB) Viewed 1913 times

Good to know, ... I remember it was not like this in the past when I have used this definition, ... but things obviously change, ... depending on the side you are into.

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
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 »

@Antonio Bonomi,
poorly educated people (or people blindly executing a low denial strategy...) are shamelessly changing their mind as per their convenience.....
especially when unable to counter arguments demonstrating these officers incorrect statements: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 036#p79029.

You are right however, we can now call these officers liars, as it is clearly true, even if I will try to be a bit less rude than these guys.....


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)
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 »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:51 pm Hello everybody,


someone wrote :
Calling you a liar is not an insult, when it's true.

Shocked.jpeg


Good to know, ... I remember it was not like this in the past when I have used this definition, ... but things obviously change, ... depending on the side you are into.

Bye Antonio
There no room to interpret Ellis as stating that he really meant to say "10 or 15"minutes prior to fire being opened" when he actually stated:
...When fire was opened, the Suffolk was roughly 18,000 yards
astern of the enemy...
So Antonio do you think that Ellis is stating where Suffolk was 10-15 minutes earlier than when fire was opened at 0552:30 (according to PoWs salvo chart)? Or do you think that Alberto is lying?
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: Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:54 pm @Antonio Bonomi,
poorly educated people (or people blindly executing a low denial strategy...) are shamelessly changing their mind as per their convenience.....
especially when unable to counter arguments demonstrating these officers incorrect statements: http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 036#p79029.

You are right however, we can now call these officers liars, as it is clearly true, even if I will try to be a bit less rude than these guys.....


Bye, Alberto
You're the perfect troll full of phony outrage when caught red handed.
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,

Mr Dunmunro, unable to counter in a civilized way my points http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 036#p79029, is now accusing me of insulting when he wrote the first insults here http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 890#p79032...... :shock:

Shameless, angry looser, unable to shut up and recognize his defeat.... :lol:


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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF »

You are right however, we can now call these officers liars,.
Just how does this strengthen your thesis ????


Can I call Holland a fool because he made a hash of his action. Can I call him an idiot because he kept his ships in close formation allowing the germans to change targets quickly with little alteration to range? Was he reckless for putting Hood in the van?

Was Lütjens a coward (I hate that word) because he got lucky and then bottled it and did a runner hiding behind "orders"??? Did he hide behind the same orders when commanding Scharnhorst & Gneisenau when he met HMS Ramillies and Malaya?


Of course not.

He acted (as did Holland) in accordance with the situation at the time. Life isn't about re-runs. I can tell you that when the worst happens you do what you thinks best at the time. Life and death situations don't run like exercises. You can train for years, but to be frank....


Its just an exercise.

The adrenaline is different ,the experience is different and rarely does an exercise really replicate a real experience. I've worked with people who excelled in theory and simulation but were useless when it came to the real thing.


I've read with interest (and admiration ) in regards to geometry. But forgive my ignorance. This is 1941,they are using dead reckoning and the mark one eyeball. You have 6 ships with 6 different crews with six different navigational officers to work out were each individual ship is. There is no GPS and and all of those involved are having to deal with the stresses of action. 2 of the ships went to the bottom taking a vast percentage of their crew with them so their information is lost. The room for "errors" is great,yet we seem to be talking about absolutes. At exactly so and so this happened, at so and so this happened. My problem with this is that relies on humans to record the information, not modern technology. The same humans who are under enormous stress of battle, who whilst "in the zone" are not infallible. There are no absolutes. And i believe that Mr Jurens on another thread mentioned that the tracks were meant for such forensic analysis 75 years later, they were a rough indicator for the boards of enquiry (If I have miss quoted you Mr Jurens I apologise)

In regards to when POW "did a runner'...


Because of the close formation and the dramatic change of circumstances how can we conclusively say that Leach wasn't opening the range? So she took one hit and turned away. How can anybody conclusively say that Leach was running away after the first hit? POW got whacked another 7 or 8 times.We cannot. I'd suggest if he hadn't of turned away it would have been considerably worse. Y turret jammed, does it matter that it wasn't at 6:02 but 6:05 or 13:56? We are talking minutes not hours and all the time each found himself in a dire situation... Heck if he was opening the range and that happened that would surely make your mind up.So POW did better than expected... Well thats great, but surely you want confidence in your weapon? Not one that can fire X,Y,Z at one minute and then fail the next. I've said it before and Ill say it again - Leach would know his ship and know his men far better than we 75 years after the event.And if she was fully functional how come their were still workmen aboard?


I don't think that these questions make me a denier or hooligan. Ive listened to both sides, sometimes I thought that there was a convincing case, but then evidence was produced that gave context. Surely the point is not to shut debate down but to explore and extrapolate. The problem is that all of the witnesses are now dead and the remnants of information in no way can give a clear picture of what exactly occurred.

The problem with the cover up theory is that too many people would have to keep quiet. Its not just the main protagonists't would be the other witnesses - the private secretaries ,the seamen, the officers, civil servants etc. People have ears and eyes, no way could you keep a vacuum of information. People would talk.


Best wishes


HMSVF
Locked