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,

the known " addicted to inquiry " at first tried with Somerville for Cape Spartivento :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8250

to end up with their masterpiece for the Denmark Strait :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8240

the very strong discipline, the back seat driving and the old Articles of War regulation produced those results.

Surely nothing to be proud about, ... just the opposite.

Bye Antonio :D
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 )
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by paul.mercer »

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Paul Mercer wrote: "Why would they want to Court Martial Captain Leach, surely he was under the command of Admiral Wake-Walker.....?"
Hi Paul,
absolutely correct.

In his analysis Roskill linked two different "aspects" that needed "explanations" using (correctly IMO, not for other people here) the papers in ADM 205/10, despite Tovey's letter explicitely mentions only the failure to re-engage.
Roskill_Churchill_Admirals_pages_125_126.jpg
The key document is pag.332 of ADM 205/10, addressed by the First Sea Lord to the First Lord in which both "aspects" are mentioned in the quoted Barnes' answer to Tovey despatches. Sir Henry Leach too correctly interpreted the Court Martial for the 2 officers as linked to two different accusations (see Wills book "In the Highest Traditions of the RN", the biography of Capt.Leach).
ADM205-10_332-1.jpg
Bye, Alberto
Hi Alberto,
Thanks for your reply, I was always lead to believe that in a naval engagement the Captain fights the ship (helm orders, how the guns were used etc) and the Admiral fights the battle, is this true?
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 »

Paul Mercer wrote: "I was always lead to believe that in a naval engagement the Captain fights the ship (helm orders, how the guns were used etc) and the Admiral fights the battle, is this true?"
Hi Paul,
in principle, very generically speaking, you are correct, especially when both are on the same ship, however this also depends quite a lot on the personalities involved. Also, not always there is a clear separation between the battle approach decisions and the ship conduct......

In case of the PoW retreat, however, the Captain and the Admiral were far away, on different ships, and Wake-Walker had no time at all to effectively take the lead from Holland (the PoW turn away maneuver started at 6:01:30, with the order to the helmsman given very shortly after 6:01:00). Therefore Leach was surely the only responsible for the disengagement decision as well as Wake-Walker was the only responsible for the decision not to re-engage later, on May 24.


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)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

You have said:
The only additional need was to " modify/correct " the superficial own signed declaration by Wake-Walker of being at 20.000 yards from Hood and close to the enemy at 06:00, ... released to the First Hood board on inquiry, ... and this was done by calling another Hood Inquiry in August 1941 creating " The Plot " and modifying the previous declaration,
I had believed you had modified your position to saying that Tovey had "defeated" any CMDS proposal in the phone call, and that there never was an "investigation" which is why "he heard no more about it" and that the "thorough investigation" described by Pound in 332 never actually took place. Therefore that the quote from Barnes' letter in 332, speaking for the Board of Admiralty, specifically endorsing both Leach's and Wake-Walker's actions was based solely on Tovey's dispatch. The only reason those two subjects were highlighted by Barnes' letter to Tovey was that an over-stressed and irrational Churchill had raised them with Pound four months previously during a heated phone call from Chequers when no actual details of the action were available. Much later, in late July, from an unspecific enquiry from the War Cabinet secretary, Pound's secretary, Richard Brockman had guessed that there was continuing interest in Leach's behaviour.

Since this long discussion started, you have tried to suggest the Boards of Enquiry into the Hood's loss were concerned with examining the tactics of the Denmark Straits action, whereas they were not, but were purely concerned with Technical Aspects of her loss, and the engineering lessons to be learned. The second Board of Enquiry was not convened, as you are currently apparently asserting, purely in order to record false information to confuse a mysterious "somebody" about what had occurred. VCNS Tom Phillips was quite clear about the reason.
In July 1941, Phillips helped to undermine the credibility of the first Inquiry into the sinking of HMS Hood. When passed the file containing the findings of the first Board of Inquiry, Phillips comments in the minutes:
"the report contains the findings of the Court, but not the evidence on which those findings are based...unfortunately it transpired that no shorthand notes of the evidence were taken. At my request, however, the Court have produced a summary of evidence ... This summary is, I understand, compiled from short notes kept by members of the Court at the time. This matter of the blowing up of the "HOOD" is one of the first importance to the Navy. It will be discussed for years to come and important decisions as to the design of ships must rest on the conclusions that are arrived at. This being so, it seems to me that the most searching inquiry is necessary in order to obtain every scrap of evidence we can as to the cause of the explosion. I regret to state that in my opinion the report as rendered by this Board does not give me confidence that such a searching inquiry has been carried out; in particular the failure to record the evidence of the various witnesses of the event strikes me as quite extraordinary. It may be that in years to come ... our successors may wish to look back at the records of the loss of the HOOD, and it is in the words of those who actually saw the event rather than in the conclusions drawn by any Committee that they would be likely to find matter of real value. In my view the matter is of such importance that a further Board of Inquiry should be held; that all who witnessed the blowing up should be interrogated. I also note that of the three survivors from the HOOD only one was interviewed. This strikes me as quite remarkable. I propose, therefore, that a further Board of Inquiry should be assembled as soon as possible and that the necessary witnesses should be made available. At this enquiry every individual in every ship present who saw the HOOD at or about the time of the blowing up should be fully interrogated."
From Wikipedia but a genuine quote.


It would be fascinating to know if Tovey wrote back to their Lordships after reading Barnes' surprising specific endorsement of Leach and Wake-Walker amongst all those thousands under his command, and what he might have said. That is the thing which is astonishingly not mentioned anywhere in Tovey's recollections to Roskill. :shock: After all he said he "heard no more about it". No more about it after the phone call on arrival at Scapa. Getting a letter from Their Lordships, four months later, specifically highlighting the subject is certainly hearing about it.

Just another thing Tovey's unreliable memory failed to recall. :cool:

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
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 »

Wadinga wrote: ".....he said he "heard no more about it"...."
Hi Sean,
it = the Court Martial threat. Tovey did not hear anything about it anymore, but, as a logical consequence of the threat, he had to satisfactorily "arrange" his final report (the "despatches").
All the other "pending" matters (like W-W incautious declarations at the first board) were "corrected" as well.

Tovey probably heard a lot about the Bismarck Operation, after the phone call with Pound..... For sure, he received the formal acceptance of his despatches (presented in early July) in early September 1941 from Barnes.


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)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

Maybe you would like to post 332 again with your underlining in Barnes' letter of the thing that Tovey "heard no more about". :lol: :D

All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
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 »

Hi Sean,
maybe you should read again what Tovey did not hear anymore about: the Court Martial threat only. :negative:
Tovey_Roskill_Court_Martial.jpg
Tovey_Roskill_Court_Martial.jpg (74.49 KiB) Viewed 667 times
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)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

Para 1 is still missing.............................

Is it really so bad for your argument that you can't show it? :D

You've not been shy about posting 332 before, but then maybe you didn't realise it calls Tovey's evidence into question. Maybe I can post it for you.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
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 »

Maybe Tovey did hear about a subsequent investigation but he'd forgotten about it?
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 »

Wadinga wrote: "...maybe you didn't realise it calls Tovey's evidence into question. Maybe I can post it for you...."
Hi Sean,
yes please, post it, showing where pag.332 explicitly speaks about "it" = the Court Martial threat.


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:37 pm, edited 2 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)
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:
Paul Mercer wrote: "I was always lead to believe that in a naval engagement the Captain fights the ship (helm orders, how the guns were used etc) and the Admiral fights the battle, is this true?"
Hi Paul,
in principle, very generically speaking, you are correct, especially when both are on the same ship, however this also depends quite a lot on the personalities involved. Also, not always there is a clear separation between the battle approach decisions and the ship conduct......

In case of the PoW retreat, however, the Captain and the Admiral were far away, on different ships, and Wake-Walker had no time at all to effectively take the lead from Holland (the PoW turn away maneuver started at 6:01:30, with the order to the helmsman given very shortly after 6:01:00). Therefore Leach was surely the only responsible for the disengagement decision as well as Wake-Walker was the only responsible for the decision not to re-engage later, on May 24.


Bye, Alberto
The timings above are your considered opinions; they are not established facts.
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 »

Dunmunro wrote: "The timings above are your considered opinions; they are not established facts."
Hi Duncan,
they are based on all the PoW maps and on her gunnery plot, correlated with German side reports and observations (+ the normal reaction time of a battleship under her rudder).

In case you have a better battle reconstruction, with different timings for the PoW maneuver, we would be very much interested to see it.....else they have to be accepted as historical facts... :wink:


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)
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

Ahhh, I get it. :D An excuse for Tovey's assertion that he heard no more about a Court Martial..........because all he got was a letter from Barnes saying that the Board of Admiralty endorsed both the supposedly-guilty parties' actions. Who coincidentally, four months earlier Tovey remembered had been threatened with a Court Martial. So he only heard about them being innocent, which was nothing to do with them being threatened. Two completely different things.

That is textbook sophistry. Respect :cool:

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
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 »

Hi Sean,
this is what is written in original letters and official British documents.

I don't comment about sophistry with people debating the past perfect tense, the "conduct" and the "Bay of Biscay" definition...... :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)
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 everytbody,

it seems that many realized what we have realized now, ... long before me, ... also Geoffrey Regan made it too :
Geoffrey_Regan-Great_Naval_Blunders.jpg
Geoffrey_Regan-Great_Naval_Blunders.jpg (30.43 KiB) Viewed 765 times
Regan_biography.jpg
Regan_biography.jpg (44.93 KiB) Viewed 765 times
Regan_page_259_01.jpg
Regan_page_259_01.jpg (74.04 KiB) Viewed 765 times
Bye Antonio :D
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 )
Locked