RN Operative Orders for the Bismarck chase

[Byron Angel]

DELETED

[Byron Angel]

Alberto,

There is an old Roman saying - "Man believes what he wishes to be true."
I unfortunately think that this sense afflicts my friend from Milan. It profoundly concerns me that you persist in ignoring the clear black and white language of the Fighting Instructions as it related to Wake-Walker's situation, that you insist in conjuring up fleet engagements where none existed in order to avoid that point, and that you continue to make arguments on the basis of unspecified but allegedly comprehensively detailed and expansive instructions contained in special "operative orders" that you imagine must have existed, but which have never actually ever been seen by anyone.

There is an old American saying - "The tail is wagging the dog."
You and Antonio have done terrific and valuable work in clarifying the physical progress of this dramatic battle. That's the "dog". Your fixation with this (IMO) totally speculative and unproven "cowardice and cover-up" scenario is the "tail". The wrong part of the dog is influencing far too much of your thinking and efforts.

I am going to withdraw once again and revert to "shadowing" status.

Byron

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Byron Angel:
Hi Byron,
always respectful of your viewpoint, I see it in the opposite way. I do think that some friends here just refute to see what is the truth because they prefer to continue trusting the stories told for 70+ years regarding this battle.
There is an Italian saying "non c'è peggior sordo di chi non vuol sentire" (translated: "there is nobody so deaf as the ones who are not willing to hear")........

Here specifically, while others still refute Antonio's reconstructed distances (while unable to propose a different battle-map), you are saying that, even if we accept that Suffolk and Norfolk were both in a situation where they could engage and contribute to a possible victory, they were doing well retaining fire.
You justify their commanding officers because they followed like "robot" the fighting instructions for shadowing (once "shadowing" was already over....), instead of exercising their due "initiative".
Inquiries were held in the RN in WWII for much less than this (see inquiry on Somerville for Cape Spartivento for lack of offensive spirit...). I honestly would not bet on the result of an inquiry where a RN Flag Officer and a RN Captain say that they did not open fire when in effective gun range because they were reading and applying literally the fighting instructions.....but I agree that they could try to defend themselves using them.....
The "problem" is that the inquiry in this case was not done at all, and an "embellishment" of the story was preferred for very good propaganda reasons during the war.....allowing decorations that the inquiry would possibly not have allowed even if it would had absolved these officers......

Re. operative orders,I don't think you really believe that a ship can be sent at sea without any order; it's not my imagination, it's just a fact in a military environment. Whether these orders were detailed or not, I have no idea, but for sure they existed , and we don't know them at all, except Tedd Briggs' reported order from Tovey to Holland and the incorrect Tovey dispatch point 17 mentioning "intentions".....


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

All,
This thread is degenerating into the argument like the supposed theological debate about how many ANGELS (geddit! ) could stand on a pin. If angels existed, and if you had a pin, and if the laws of physics didn't exist.........

If they had been within range, which very, very few accept, what were they ordered to do and what latitude did RN commanders at sea have in interpretation? The Fighting Instructions are very clear and very obsolete, (although not as extinct as the Articles of Warre for Ye Kinge's Shippes 1523 edition), and were written for a refight of Jutland where "cruisers" might be expected to have an 8 to 12 knot speed advantage over a battle line composed of Ist generation Dreadnoughts or possibly Pre-Dreadnoughts.

Denmark Straits is different.

We have discussed in depth elsewhere how some Admirals in some navies in the radio age have to clear their every action with shoreside superiors. And how ridiculous and stultifying and deadly this can be. There has even been the laughable suggestion that Lutjens had to worry about firing back at DS as he has orders not to engage and should have asked for permission! Only slightly dafter would the idea that Brinkmann should have sent "excuse me Sir, I'm only a cruiser, can I be let off being in the battle!" or that Lutjens carried out a Nelsonian masterstroke by not following Kriegsmarine Kampfanweisungen
and putting PG in the lee.

The majority of those following these threads still do not believe AAA have any valid argument N & S were actually at the battle of Denmark Straits in terms of useful gun range unlike PG.

The RN gave officers at sea considerable leeway, since the man on the spot always makes the best decisions. Pound should/would interfere directly only when he thought he had better information, eg Enigma intercepts of Tirpitz movements and PQ 17, and look how that turned out.

All the best

wadinga

[Alberto Virtuani]

@Wadinga:
Hi Sean,
I have to say that I agree with most of what you write above re. officers latitude to interpret regulations and even orders.

I can't agree that we have no valid argument to state that the British heavy cruisers were actually at the battle of Denmark Straits in terms of useful gun range. However, here it is NOT the right thread to discuss this. Please refer to "The Plot" thread in case you are able to counter Antonio's reconstruction, providing a valid alternative.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6495&start=1185

Here we are trying to see if we can find any operative order for the Bismarck chase, and apparently we can't. I hope you agree that, for sure, orders were given to Holland and to Wake-Walker and that reading these orders can help to better understand (and judge) their subsequent actions....... Any help from your side will be more than welcome, when related to the topic of this thread !


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

you wrote :

The majority of those following these threads still do not believe AAA have any valid argument N & S were actually at the battle of Denmark Straits in terms of useful gun range unlike PG.

I am still waiting your version of the battle and the N&S distances at 05.41 according to you, ... in writing.

So once again I ask you to do it, ... no useless words, ... but facts.

Just as Alberto properly suggested you :

... please refer to "The Plot" thread in case you are able to counter Antonio's reconstruction, providing a valid alternative.

Bye Antonio

[Cag]

Hello All,
Just a quick post to say that this question may be answered by my post in 'The Plot' section
Best wishes
Cag.