The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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 »

Francis Marliere wrote: "If Leach and Wake-Walker made "just perfect" decisions, why should they be court-martialled ?"
Hi Francis,
I said that they made perfect decisions "with hindsight" ONLY, because their timidity allowed anyway to sink the Bismarck without any further loss, while, had they been the heroes that the hooligans still would like to believe, their ships would have sustained heavy damages.

From a pure military standpoint they should have been Inquired and Court Martialled, as they would have surely been, had Bismarck survived, r worse, had she caused damages to British interests performing her mission.
It's obvious that their actions were considered with much more indulgence in light of the final victory achieved, albeit the two officers were not given any further task involving any personal bravery (one supervised by an admiral on board his ship, the other to perform a (prestigious) back-office task).



Hello everybody,
Mr. Wadinga low accusation to Antonio and me ("their insults and bullying behaviour"), while a true RN hooligan says that A&A "are simply too ignorant or, unfortunately it has to be said, too stupid to understand that" without any reaction from him in our defense is the final proof of his infamous intent to discredit the work done here, that has destroyed his favorite fairy tale. :kaput:


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: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,

Your determination to insult the memory of two decorated officers apparently has no limits

Selective blindness again:
the other to perform a (prestigious) back-office task).
No, commanding the Home Fleet in several carrier strike operations against North Norway and Finland. You can't just keep leaving out those bits of inconvenient information. Otherwise people will think you don't care about the truth. :negative:
albeit the two officers were not given any further task involving any personal bravery (one supervised by an admiral on board his ship
Captain Leach commanded his ship through major air attacks by Italian forces during Operation Halberd. These included with additional naval forces:
Light cruisers Muzio Attendolo and Duca degli Abruzzi of the 8th cruiser division sailed from Palermo with Maestrale-class destroyers Maestrale, Grecale and Scirocco of the 10th destroyer flotilla to take position off La Maddalena. Battleships Vittorio Veneto and Littorio were prepared to sortie from Naples with Granatiere, Fuciliere, Bersagliere and Gioberti of the 13th flotilla, and Nicoloso da Recco, Pessagno and Folgore of the 16th flotilla while cruisers Trieste, Trento and Gorizia from Taranto with Corazziere, Carabiniere, Ascari and Lanciere of the 12th flotilla prepared to join them. Sardinia deployed thirty Macchi C.200, twenty Fiat CR.42 and twenty-six Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 and SM.84 torpedo bombers against the convoy while Sicily deployed fifteen C.200, three Reggiane Re.2000, and nine Junkers Ju 87 with twenty-four Fiat BR.20, SM.79 and SM.84 as high-level bombers and plus three with torpedoes.
I demand that you retract the insulting insinuation that these Regia Aeronautica air attacks and the approach and retirement of the Italian Battlefleet represented no personal danger for Captain Leach. Your apparent observation that these forces were entirely ineffectual or that Rear Admiral Curteis was so large as represent a human shield for Leach, who was very tall, are frankly ludicrous.

I should stay away from any naval reunions for a bit in case any of your former shipmates read this stuff. :lol:

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by northcape »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:24 pm
I said that they made perfect decisions "with hindsight" ONLY, because their timidity allowed anyway to sink the Bismarck without any further loss, while, had they been the heroes that the hooligans still would like to believe, their ships would have sustained heavy damages.
This is the most ridicolous statement ever, and can only be produced by someone who indeed lives in a hero fantasy world imaged from children books. It is also utterly fantastic, because in one single sentence it summarizes (1) the neglect of reality, (2) the 180 degree truth-twisting of trolls when caught in the act, (3) a children-mind imagination of warfare and military actions.

ad (1): Tovey himself said that the actiosn taken by all W-W and Leach (just shadowing) was completely the right thing to do and inline with his tactics. Like Alberto says, it was a perfect decision and if Tovey's plotting staff woud not have screwed up later, this perfect decision would have led to the destruction of Bismarcka as well, only earlier. So at the time the decision to break off and shadow was taken, it was the correct decision (correct with regard to the wishes of the C-in-C, ad correct with the tactics). So it was the right thing to do in time, not with hindsight,

ad (2): The sentence is so amazing - it states at the same time "They did right, but they did not".

ad (3): The constant obsession with "heroes" and "cowards", in particular from armchair seniors in front of computers, shows the lack of any understanding for the real fight the nations were in. Britain had to fight for its life, and needed to take the correct decisions to win the fight. This decisions revolve around beating the enemy, which in turn is based on rationalism. "Heroism" is peace-time luxury, in war-time its blind pursuit mostly spells disaster in the big picture, in particular if you don't have abundant officers, soldiers, and materials.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1223
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by paul.mercer »

Hi Alberto,
Once again, many thanks for your kind and polite reply (It's beginning to become a rarity from some in this debate!)
For those who keep insisting that Capt Leach and to an extent Adml Wake-Walker acted in cowardly manner I put this scenario to them,
Gentlemen,
Before we go any further with accusations of cowardice against Capt Leach please reflect on this point. I have never served in the forces, but even those in this forum who have will never have experienced the rain of 15” and 8” shells hitting your ship or the sheer terror after one has hit your bridge killing and injuring many of your senior officers, with yourself stunned and disorientated by the blast. Think of the effect of seeing blood and bodies everywhere around you with what communications that are left trying to tell you the ship is being heavily hit and others from the Gunnery Officers saying that some of the main armament is disabled. Gradually, as your mind clears, it becomes obvious that you are fighting a battle that if you continue with, you are destined to lose, together with the ship and most if not all her crew. So what are you going to do, fight on and be sunk or make the painful decision that this is one you cannot win and disengage, save the ship and crew, fall back onto friendly forces and hope to fight another day, at the same time praying that in years to come some so called ‘Naval Historians’ will not try and brand you as a coward?
Think about it!
mstary1
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:30 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by mstary1 »

I would agree with Paul Mercer's point. In WWII, there were many instances of tactical withdrawals or not engaging at all by most nations. Spruance at Midway tactically withdrew his forces out of range of the Japanese to avoid a night engagement against superior surface forces. Lutjens did it with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau during operation Berlin when he came up against a single battleship escort. In fact, when sighting the Malaya, he shadowed the convoy, reporting it's postion to U-boats. Surely with a 2 to one advantage against a slow WW1 battleship, she should have attacked?
Looking at the Barents Sea action. Kummetz withdrew with Hipper after just a few hits despite knowing the Lutzow was there to support him. Kummetz coul have lured Sheffield and Jamaica towards Lutzow but choose to terminate the operation. Was Kummetz a cowards too? Of course not!And of course the Italian navy in the Med, who made tactical withdrawals an art form despite on paper superiority.

Leach's actions in the DS are a lesson for military commanders on how to think logically and cooly under fire and make an informed decision. Linking up with WW and supporting the shadowing effort shows Leach was the right man for the job of CO of POW. Any charges of cowardice is distateful in the etreme. If it is used to sell books, well that receives my utter contempt. As Paul said, I too could never now the terror on 8 and 15" shells landing around me, although I have served my navy for 25 years and counting.
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Byron Angel »

To hopefully alter the course of this discussion to a more useful heading ..........

After Prince of Wales suffered four major caliber shell hits from Bismarck in the course of a few minutes, including a bridge hit which knocked Leach senseless, killed or disabled most of his immediate staff and interrupted internal communications with the rest of his ship, how long do we suppose was required for Leach to simply recover his wits and then get a grip on the damage suffered by his ship, then request and receive orders from Wake-Walker, the new OITC after the death of Admiral Holland? 30 seconds? A minute? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? What should Leach have done during the intervening time?

Was the newest and most modern battleship in the entire RN to be considered expendable' by Leach and Wake-Walker? By Tovey? By the Admiralty?

I'd appreciate some insights from anyone here who served at sea as a naval officer. Also, if I am wrong on any point, please cane and correct me as required. Wake-Walker original orders from Admiral Tovey were to locate and maintain contact with Bismarck. Admiral Holland's tactical instructions to Wake-Walker, in so far as I understand them, was for his cruiser division to flank mark fall of shot - which I consider as a function separate and distinct from physically engaging. Once Holland was killed, what was Wake-Walker's obligation (if any) with respect to Tovey's previous instructions to maintain contact. If Wake-Walker had engaged and as a result lost use of Suffolk's Type 284 RDF (my understanding is that this was the sole reliable RDF set on the scene with decent surface search capability), what would have been his exposure from the point of view of perceived command competency?

Just curious.

B
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello All,

Rather than discuss the wider implications of the Denmark Straits action this thread is specifically concerned with the diminishingly small chance that Wake-Walker and Leach were ever threatened with a Court Martial. Can I respectfully request than posts concerning speculative maps, tactics, the conditions on PoW's bridge after the hit etc are placed in the relevant threads. Study of these threads will show that many of the points have been debated at length.


Since there is no evidence that Pound thought these officers were in any way suspect, and kept them in post or gave them promotion, the content of the missing 24th May letter cannot have included a requirement for a Board of Inquiry backed up by real suspicion. They could not be left in such demanding positions if they had behaved in the manner alleged by A & A. Tovey spends very little time in his letter defending the accuseds' actions, since they need no defence. The matter is closed for him and he "hears no more about it", until he unfortunately makes up his embarrassing little embellishment 15 years later, one which he requests Roskill to keep silent about.


Tovey's phone call in which he apparently threatened to resign as C-in-C Home Fleet on the 30th May is not mentioned at all in the letter written by him to Pound on the 31st May. The reason is simple, it never happened as he described, but was an embroidery he invented sometime in the mid Fifties about the time he invented the ROOF signal before Bismarck was sunk and forgot why he was not sent positions as well as intercepted bearings.


The cordial letters between Churchill and Leach show that the histrionic outburst by the Great Man/Monster at Chequers were forgotten completely within days if not hours, and the Premier's famous tendency to hold a grudge would not have let Leach off the hook simply because Bismarck was sunk. If he really believed Leach was an LMF (Lack of Moral Fibre) he would have been toast, not chauffeuring the Great and Good to the USA. This ludicrous idea of a "nanny" admiral is tragic evidence Alberto has decided to prostitute his naval experience on the altar of unquestioning support of Antonio's baseless assertions. Did Leach sit whimpering in a corner as brave Rear Admiral Curteis chased after Littorio and Vittorio Veneto at 28 knots leaving the damaged Nelson and slow Rodney far behind? Only in Alberto's fantasy scenario. The answer is no. Leach was an excellent naval officer as recognised by Churchill when he heard of his death in action.

First the Ziggurat of Supposition was built on the unproven foundation that a Court Martial was threatened. Now new evidence has shown there never was a CMDS threat, the insubstantial structure of the Ziggurat is being retrospectively presented by its fabricators in an attempt to buttress its own foundation. Neither CMDS or A & A's assertions are true.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by northcape »

Paul Mercer:
"For those who believe that the officers were cowards..."
"those" are only two persons, so you directly address them. If you want to refer to them as Gentlemen, that is of course totally up to you.
I think your story will not affect them, since it seems that they base their understanding of military conduct and successful fighting on comic books for little boys and third-rate war movies with the lonely hero defeating an entire army and marrying the princess in the end.
To all others, I just say it is completely useless to use knowledge, common sense, and facts when arguing with conspiracy theorists. In this case, the reply will be the well known record comprising "the most exact battlemap", "some letters and a phone call", "the kings regulations", the "naval discipline act","Troubridge", and of course the "silver bullet".
Francis Marliere
Senior Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by Francis Marliere »

Gents,

I'm sorry that I fuelled the dispute, since I do not appreciate those unkindly words, that will eventualy sink this forum.

By the way, no offense Alberto, but I don't see your point. Please correct me if I misunderstand you, but it seems to me that you say RADM Walke-Walker and Captain Leach's decisions were good because Bismarck was sunk, but would be bad if the German battleship escaped. IMHO, what you say can be said of every officer involved in battle: Nelson is a hero because he won at Trafalgar, but if he had lost, he would be a fool hardy and a looser.

IMHO, what matters in military affairs is the final result, since the decisions are judged upon their consequences (victory or defeat). Nobody cares about the theorical quality of a maneuver or decision, but about his outcome. It's why Napoleon always prefered a lucky general to a good one.

Best regards to all,

Francis
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1223
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by paul.mercer »

northcape wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:39 am Paul Mercer:
"For those who believe that the officers were cowards..."
"those" are only two persons, so you directly address them. If you want to refer to them as Gentlemen, that is of course totally up to you.
I think your story will not affect them, since it seems that they base their understanding of military conduct and successful fighting on comic books for little boys and third-rate war movies with the lonely hero defeating an entire army and marrying the princess in the end.
To all others, I just say it is completely useless to use knowledge, common sense, and facts when arguing with conspiracy theorists. In this case, the reply will be the well known record comprising "the most exact battlemap", "some letters and a phone call", "the kings regulations", the "naval discipline act","Troubridge", and of course the "silver bullet".
Thanks for your reply, I really did not intend to group everyone in this debate under 'those' in these circumstances! However As you probably know from my other posts, i usually start them with the word 'Gentlemen' as it seems the right way to address all of the people in this Forum when I am talking to them. I'm sorry if this method of address offends you, but I think it is the polite way to do things, sadly, politeness appears to have been forgotten by some in this particular debate.. As I have suggested before on numerous occasions, this debate seems to go around in circles, surely it is now time to call a halt and move on?
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 will ignore the repeated insults of people that don't deserve any attention and I will answer ONLY to polite people:


Hi Paul,
I see your scenario and I'm afraid I would have totally panicked in such a situation.
However, we know about people like Cmdr.Glasfurd (HMS Acasta) who was fired at by 2 German battleships and decided to do his utmost to damage them, despite HMS Glorious was already lost: he succeeded but died. We know Adm.Beatty comment to the explosion of his second ship at Jutland from the signature of Mr.Wadinga: he did not turn away the battlecuiser squadron for that. We know about Cmdr De Cristofaro (RN Tarigo) who, after a shell amputated his leg, refused to leave his bridge and ordered another attack against the enemy: he sank with his ship.
There are several heroism examples in which, in situations even worse than Leach's one, the commanding officer did his duty up to the end, succeeding and/or dying. I still consider Leach and Wake-Walker attitude quite timid according to the standard of the Royal Navy (as well as Troubridge's one).


Hi mstary1,
the comparison of Leach decision with Lutjens, Kummetz or Italian Admirals' ones is not totally correct IMO: they had either explicit orders not to engage at all or to engage only in clear superiority situation (a very ambiguous definition).
AFAIK, Leach had no such order and was at sea to sink Bismarck, not to perform any other task that could justify his retreat.....


Hi Byron,
on paper, I'm sure Churchill would have sacrificed PoW in exchange with Bismarck, aren't you ? For sure Pound suggested Tovey that the sacrifice of a heavy cruiser was a light prize to pay for maintaining the contact with Bismarck instead of loosing contact. However the point here is not to blindly sacrifice one ship or the other, but to try to damage Bismarck in order to prevent her from her mission against the British traffic.
Wake-Walker orders were to locate Bismarck. However, once BC1 was in sight, there was no need of explicit orders for a flag officer to engage the enemy and support the action of the battleships (this is also the advise of Adm.Santarini in his book).
Once Holland was killed, Wake-Walker's duty was to try to stop Bismarck, replacing Holland, not to blindly continue his shadowing role, even after having been "solicited" by the admiralty with the "intentions" signal.


Hi Francis,
you are (unfortunately) right. What matters for history is the final result and I fully understand Churchill final decision "Leave it", while Troubridge was not so lucky and was trialed by CM because the Goeben succeeded.
However the final result cannot completely hide the deficiencies of some officers and that's why IMO a serious inquiry would have been preferable to the easy solution, the "sugar-coating" of the reports. My strict personal opinion, of course.




Finally,
Paul Mercer wrote: "I'm sorry if this method of address offends you, but I think it is the polite way to do things"
:clap:
I do agree, even if we (Paul and myself) are in disagreement about the evaluation of the military behaviors, we can discuss politely. Civilized manners should not be forgotten in this debate, but I think the desperation of some people unable to argument is surfacing in their insults.....


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 everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

civilized manners imply that those " hooligan/deniers " following the examples of their " looser " leaders ... at first stop offending persons with their invented " conspiracy theory " they try to state being invented by us and recognize/acknowledge that this unfortunate and shameful series of events is written into the still available official documents and has been already written and revealed/disclosed by the most important British historians already, long time ago.

That is the first step to restore a civilized way to discuss among us into this forum with those persons.

The only thing we can accept is that we ( me and you ) have been going a lot deeper into the analysis and the connections among the various events, ... always and only related to the same 2 Officers subject to the Board of Inquiry -> Court Martial attempt request and we have connected the final rewarding by the King to the ADM/205/10, ... as it is obvious and self evident even if never written before by any historian.

But we know the reasons why both a deeper analysis ( intentionally false statement on Tovey dispatches ) as well as the final rewarding connection was never correlated to this shameful event by the historians, ... it is too easy to understand why it happened.

Only Sir Henry Leach did it, ... when he pretended to try to fully restore his father memory, ... with his biography, ... obviously.

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

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF »

However, we know about people like Cmdr.Glasfurd (HMS Acasta) who was fired at by 2 German battleships and decided to do his utmost to damage them, despite HMS Glorious was already lost: he succeeded but died. We know Adm.Beatty comment to the explosion of his second ship at Jutland


Glasfurd and Barker where undeniably brave. IMHO they should have been awarded the VC - especially Glasfurd as Roope was for his actions with HMS Glowworm . As a counter argument I would say this. He was the captain of a destroyer.Destroyers were expendable when compared to battlecruisers. He also knew that there was a multitude of vessels streaming troops and equipment back from Norway. I suspect the reason why Glasfurd didn't get the VC was because to award the VC would have opened up the can of worms that is tightly sealed shut under the 100 year rule in regards to Guy D'Oyly-Hughes conduct and complete mismanagement of HMS Glorious.

In regards to Beatty...

Well. Despite the BCF's losses he had the 5th Battle Squadron with him and the odds were still in his favour - he had the 4 most powerful ships in the world with him. He was hardly on his own. Indeed,if it hadn't have been for his (Beatty's) mismanagement and poor communication the likely hood of losing HMS Queen Mary would have been lessened as the Evan Thomas would have been far closer than he actually was to the BCF. Might have save HMS Indefatigable too. We will never know. What is known is that Beatty was apoplectic when Harper produced his report and ordered tracks to be altered (for instance he cocked up an instruction to Chatfield which lead to HMS Lion doing a full 360' turn which was removed from his version the tracks, he requested that Grand Fleet accounts were suppressed (begrudgingly he acknowledged that "I suppose it doesn't matter if we hear that the Grand Fleet got its feet wet" and that his mishandling of his ships (even after Dogger Bank they still couldn't get target allocation right which left SMS Moltke free of fire and able to fire unimpeded). Such was the fury of the "Jutland Scandal" that HMS Beatty and Jellicoe ended up being renamed HMS Howe and Anson...

Different circumstances, different ships, different numbers, different numbers.Different strategic problems

In regards to Troubridge... Well the counter argument is what occurred off Coronel. Christopher Craddock was shafted by the Admiralty and Churchill. He was denied proper support in the form of HMS Defence and knew what happen if he didn't engage as Troubridge had already been hung out to dry. Indeed he gave the governor of the Falklands his letters in regards to the Admiralty farcical handling of Spee's threat and also personal possessions as he knew he wasn't coming back. Troubridge was shafted by Churchill's meddling and Battenbergs incompetence. Was Craddock sacrifice glorious? Well,the germans were not particularly damaged, the biggest negative was that they had fired a fair amount of ammunition and had reduced the chances of making it home to zero.Not through damage inflicted but through his overwhelming victory at Coronel,no way would the RN (or more importantly the navy obsessed public) accept that.






So roll on to 1941. Hood has just disintegrated in from of his eyes taking admiral Holland with him. His ship is brand new with a workmen still on board.He has been kept in close formation so the Germans already have the range, they just need the correct deflection. His bridge is then taken out by a shell killing almost all of those around him. All of this occurs in minutes. His ship (unbeknown to him) has hit Bismarck 3 times before Hoods immolation, after his evasive manoeuvres and many hits I believe that no hits were obtained and fire became ragged. Its one thing to be able to fire,its another to fire effectively and on target. Seeing as this new battleship has just sank Hood and peppered HMS POW he withdraws and regroups. Leach will be aware that the RN has several battleships in the Atlantic and a couple of carriers. If he can hang on to Bismarck and keep "tag" on her till Tovey or other units arrive then he will achieved his mission.

Im sure that the counter argument of course is that HMS POW should have continued the fight and attempted to severely damage Bismarck. Well, that relies on the idea that POW was in a position to do that. Salvo counts can tell you so much, but the definitive test is how effective was the fire. If it was ragged and inaccurate as Mr Virtuani's friend Admiral Santarini stated

"We shouldn't allow ourselves to be misled by the lack of hits after 06:00,as mechanical breakdowns and violent rudder movements to avoid enemy fire substantially hindered any efforts to hit again"

HMS POW was one of 3 ships (if you included the now sunk HMS Hood) that had the necessary firepower, the necessary speed and armour (or not in Hoods case) that could match Bismarck. It's a hell of gamble to risk one of the 2 ships remaining that could (theoretically) match Bismarck. If Leach goes for bust and sticks it out but fails to cripple Bismarck (not an unreasonable or unlikely scenario given her performance after 06:00) given whats occurred within 10 minutes or so of battle but loses HMS POW in the process then that leaves just KGV. Lets remember this is May 1941 - no battleship has been sunk or crippled at sea by aircraft from a carrier . If POW is sunk or crippled whats stopping Bismarck from doing a 180 and going back up the Denmark Strait? Who is going to stop him?

Lastly, through experience I will not judge people who face life and death decisions too harshly. You get one chance with the cards you are dealt. No amount of training or simulation will prepare you for the real thing. You can simulate a scenario a 1000 times but nothing prepares you for the adrenaline and feelings of living through a desperate event.Unless you have been in a life/death situation its difficult to portray.

Leach experienced possibly the worst 10 minutes of any captains experience at sea. He lost his Admiral,his flagship, has just been inches (or less) away from death himself and had to get a hold of the situation whilst also dealing with a damaged ship which was suffering from some pretty serious faults. We can argue how bad till the cows come home.To be doesn't matter what we think 75 years later but what Leach thought at the time.


My (polite and cordial) counter argument



Best wishes


HMSVF
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Once again you make up things that never happened:
Court Martial attempt request
There is no evidence there ever was a "Court Martial attempt request"
revealed/disclosed by the most important British historians already, long time ago.


No British, American, German or even Zimbabwean historian has revealed or disclosed any Conspiracy Theory about Denmark Straits. Only you and Alberto have invented it and suggested collusion between RN officers to deceive anybody, although you are extremely vague about who it is they were supposed to deceive, since everybody from lowly crew members to the Prime Minister are now supposed to be in on it. According only to you.


Your ludicrous obsession with awards:
we have connected the final rewarding by the King to the ADM/205/10, ... as it is obvious and self evident even if never written before by any historian.
Disregards that Wake-Walker and Leach's recognition for their sterling service in the Denmark Straits was first marked with their remaining in post from about 31st May onwards.
never correlated to this shameful event by the historians
There is no shameful event. No word of criticism based on even the shallowest analysis of the accuseds' actions has ever been recorded.
Only Sir Henry Leach did it, ... when he pretended to try to fully restore his father memory, ... with his biography,
Whose biography? Henry Leach's autobiography gives no further evidence, as he was clearly only aware of Tovey's baseless, unsubstantiated allegation from Kennedy's book. Only Wills wrote a biography of John Leach and he apparently made no effort whatsoever to investigate the CMDS threat, but like many others parroted it because in the end it was completely dismissed in 1941 as without foundation or effect.

That is the first step to restore a civilized way to discuss among us into this forum

The first step is for you to withdraw your name calling of cowardice. You have presented no worthwhile evidence at all and despite its endless repetition no-one has yet accepted any of your points. Pathetic personal jibes calling those who quite reasonably question the basis and content of your Conspiracy Theory, "ignorant", "ill-educated" and "loosers" (sic) are hardly civilised.


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 »

Hello everybody,

as anyone can see above, Mr.Wadinga (as well as many others among the "deniers") is not willing to condemn the personal insults and attacks of his fellow RN hooligans (started already in 2013 !): therefore he is totally "partner in crime" with them and he will be treated as they all deserve: ignoring his repeated denial of the overwhelming evidences pointing to a serious threat against the two officers, that is clearly a "motive" for the subsequent SHAMEFUL (but comprehensible in wartime) "sugar-coating" of the reports.

If he prefers to think that Pinchin's Plot is a correct battlemap, that Churchill and Pound were happy when they knew that a British battleship had retreated in front of the enemy having sustained "superficial damages" only (and when a flag officer refused to re-engage the enemy when in superiority, loosing contact), that Tovey wrote point 17 and 19 of his despatches without the clear intent to sell a less poor version of the story for Leach and Wake-Walker, that Barnes' answer and ADM 205/10 don't suffice to explain the political decision to "leave it", that all the historians and Sir Henry Leach were so incompetent to trust the CM story, and that decorations were well deserved also for the timid officers, it is by now his personal problem ONLY.



Adm.Santarini wrote (quoted by HMSVF): "We shouldn't allow ourselves to be misled by the lack of hits after 06:00,as mechanical breakdowns and violent rudder movements to avoid enemy fire substantially hindered any efforts to hit again"
Adm.Santarini says PoW gunnery performance was excellent (pag.50-54), until the Hood explosion, then it was affected by the violent turns, especially the 160° turn away that put "Y" turret out of action.
Had Leach decided to continue the fight and had he steered an almost parallel course to Bismarck, her gunnery precision could quickly have been restored (as per McMullen opinion, in his interview: "Guns are OK") and PoW was clearly still able to further damage Bismarck (as Pound apparently outlined to Tovey in his May 28 letter, based on Tovey May 31 answer). Whether PoW would have been severely damaged (probably), crippled (possible) or sunk (unlikely) is a matter of speculation, as well as Bismarck possible damages severity.



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)
Locked