Antonio Bonomi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:34 am
Hello everybody,
@HMSVF,
the attempt to delay the HMS Prince of Wales turn away disengagement, ... breaking off the action, ... is an old story that has been already discusssed many times and always easily demostrated being incorrect by Capt J.C. Leach own report.
Here the statements describing those events that Capt Leach wrote :
It was considered expedient to break off the action and consolidate the position, and the ship, after being manoeuvred round the remains of "Hood", turned away behind a smoke screen.
"Y" Turret fired in local during the turn as smoke blanked the after director.
It now seems probable that the enemy turned away at the same time as "Prince of Wales" and about two enemy salvos were seen short during this period.
The "Prince of Wales" fired 18 main armament salvos. The target was crossed and recrossed and three straddles observed. No hits were seen.
True range on opening fire was 25,000 yards. The true range on ceasing fire was 14,500 yards.
The 5.25" opened fire at a range of 18,000 yards but only fired 3 salvos.
"Y" Turret's shell ring jammed during the turn away and the turret was out of action until 0825.
From here :
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... #P391Leach
Alberto is right, ... because the fact that Adm Tovey on his dispatches "moved in " intentionally the Y turret jamming event is one of the so called " Cover Up " actions, ... together with the battle time enlargement until 06:13, ... both made on purpose to make the report acceptable by the Admiralty, ... enabling the recognition proposal.
For Wake-Walker the same action was done to change his signed declaration of being at 20.000 yards from the sinking Hood, ... and consequently at around 12 sea miles from the enemy well within his main guns range, ... was changed during the Hood second board to 30.000 yards ... and on Adm Tovey dispatches to around 15 sea miles, ... removing Wake-Walker from a very dangerous position he put himself thru his own superficial signed declarations, ... surely he was not a " fox ", ... despite his fast growing career, ... but we know the reasons why his career has been like that, ...
Bye Antonio
Thanks for the reply (& the link)
I may be being a little thick here but bear with me!
From the link...
The "Prince of Wales" fired 18 main armament salvos. The target was crossed and recrossed and three straddles observed. No hits were seen. True range on opening fire was 25,000 yards. The true range on ceasing fire was 14,500 yards.
Whilst not point blank range it was still pretty damned close with the likelyhood of being hit pretty good. 20 years earlier Beatty was fighting at this range with BCF. Bismarck and POW were 2 generations later than those that fought WW1 with the optics and FC to match. A battle turn away was probably very prudent given the fact that because Holland had sailed his squadron in close formation Schneider had very little corrections to make as he had obviously got the range on Hood and merely had to train his guns on POW and continue the carronade.
After retiring on a course of about 160 degs. "Prince of Wales" circled to port, steadying up on a course of 250 degs. And joining "Norfolk" came under orders of C.S.1 who at 0633, stated his intention of keeping in touch with the enemy. The extent of the general damage to the ship was reported to C.S.1. At 0707 C.S.1 ordered "Prince of Wales" to follow at her best speed giving his course 210 degs. Speed 26 knots. Two guns of "Y" Turret were again in action by 0720 and an amplifying report of damage was made to C.S.1.
So he has called for reports from his damage control parties and reported to his senior which is now WW. Even at this point 2 out of the four guns of Y turret are still jammed as is the actual turret, which is not free till 08:25 and the ships best speed was down a couple of knots
At 1923 temporary breakdown of two guns in "A" Turret was reported to C.S.1
So the turret mechanisms still could not be relied on 10 hours later. Would argue that if you are going to stand toe to toe with the Bismarck you don't want to worry about whether you will be able to actually fire.
At 0511 C.S.1 had signalled his intention to keep "Prince of Wales" in support if visibility was low, otherwise to detach her to join C-in-C H.F.
Isn't this sensible? Indeed wasn't it RN policy to keep 2 KGV's (or 1 US battleship and a KGV) to deal with Tirpitz.
Indeed from your link...
(
a). The practical certainty that owing to mechanical "teething troubles" a full output from the main armament was not to be expected.
(b). The working up of the Ship after commissioning had only just reached a stage where I felt able to report to the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet, that I considered her reasonably fit to take part in service operations. This was the first occasion on which she had done so. From the gunnery point of view the personnel was (sic) immensely keen and well drilled, but inexperienced.
(c). The likelihood of a decisive concentration being effected at a later stage.
Well in the first instance POW obviously was having issues hence the workmen on board. 74% output isn't great. He obviously took the view that POW would do ok in the presence of another, more experienced vessel (HMS Hood). I don't think that is an unreasonable premise. Also its not just about gunnery. This was the ships first operation,she was new, her crew were new.They needed to get to "know" each other, certainly when it comes to damage control and dealing with mechanical breakdowns. When Hood was afloat it was 2 v 1 effectively. Bismarck could either fire at Hood or POW,if she fired at Hood (as actual) POW has a free shoot at Bismarck . IF Bismarck fires at POW,Hood gets a free shoot at Bismarck. If Bismarck splits her fire then the chances of causing significant damage are probably reduced. Now flip back to what actually happened - Hood sinks within minutes, because of the formation sailed POW gets hammered (as does Leach on the bridge). He is now facing the worst case scenario 2v1 in a ship he hasn't got full confidence in (teething issues) and a crew he considers inexperienced. He thinks he has been hit reasonably hard already and is thinks he is in deep trouble.
I think that its extremely harsh to criticise Leach given these circumstances. Losing Hood was bad enough. To have lost POW would have been a disaster. The RN was not endowed with a large number of modern or modernised ships - KGV, POW, Renown,Warspite, Queen Elizabeth,Valiant,Rodney and Nelson. The first 2 are new,Renown was a battlecruiser, the Q.E's were 23 knotters at best and nowhere near as well armoured as Bismarck,the last 2 were way overdue for overhaul. The others ships were all aged and suffering from varying degree's of battleship infirmity!
The reason why the RN rules the seas for 300 + years was not just because it was full of valour and zeal, it was because it knew how to take a calculated risk. The IJN took the view that death was better than surrender. Didn't do much good though. Once you lose experience crew for zero gains its very difficult to replace them. Japan found that to their cost. The reason that Ozawa used his carriers off Leyte as bait was simple - he didn't have enough pilots.Why ? Well because the bushido code was big on self sacrifice, which meant that a lot of experienced pilots were lost on glory rides to meet their maker. Which meant that up and coming pilots were not mentored, they were given x amount of flying hours and sent on their way.
Did Churchill go off on one when the initial reports came back? Undoubtably. The problem with Churchill is that he thought that he knew about seapower inside and out. In actual fact he was clueless. for the one thing he got right - Queen Elizabeth class he got a multitude wrong (Operation Catherine,Dardenelles,Norway to name 3). He probably heard "Hood sunk,Prince of Wales disengaged" and nothing else. I can just see the old bugger erupting like Mount Vesuvius, quoting shakespeare and getting his big pointy stick out. It's not until the later reports come in that he realises he has been a complete fool but rather than lose faith (and face) he says "leave it".As a result nothing official ever occurs and Tovey, Leach and WW carry on.
Bill Jurens has already discussed the charts issue and what he thinks about them. I bow to his far greater knowledge and experience, he seems a level headed chap and I thought that his previous comments were about right. My other query about the idea of "cover up" is that the RN surely would have done a better job of it and more pertinently had other bigger cock ups to hide? To me the far greater cover up is the HMS Glorious incident. This has had the 100 year rule slapped on the files, even in the 90's calls to declassify were refused (and this was discussed in Parliament in the 90's).
These are my musings, no degeneration, insult or disrespect are meant by them. I just don't see it the same way from whats been presented.
Best wishes
HMSVF