Cover up synopsis

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1086
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Cover up synopsis

Postby Herr Nilsson » Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:51 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,
Now we know ... why the " cover up " occurred.


@Antonio

To be honest I still don't know, to be honest I've also lost track. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. We would be glad to have you explanation:

Please could you explain why the cover up occurred at all and please could you list all people who took part in this cover up and all people who "had to pay" for it.

We thank you in advance!
Regards

Marc

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3263
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:58 am

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

first of all I am glad you used on your request the correct definition of “ Cover Up “ I have being using since the beginning of this discussion.

Cover up in my opinion means that when something happened and it was not good, instead of declaring the truth, you declare something different changing the information you have, and by doing so you modify the data “ Covering Up “ the truth with a set of incorrect information supporting the new version of the events you like to provide.

Here following the Denmark Strait “ Cover Up “ summary you requested.

The “ Cover Up “ started immediately after Adm Tovey reaction to Adm Pound unsuccessfully trying to convince him to court martial RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach, as per Winston Churchill request.

Adm Tovey asked Adm Pound a direct order from him to do it. The order never reached him.

Instead of providing the truth and go for the punishment, it was decided to go for the rewarding, consequently the events needs to be modified in order to support it, according to available W. Churchill previously released guidelines to be used :

Good news was made to seem better; bad news was toned down, delayed or sometimes suppressed.


Immediately after Adm Tovey started the coordination of the “ Cover Up “ changing the most critical data and declarations, in cooperation with RearAdm Wake-Walker.

Norfolk and Suffolk distance to the enemy and PoW retreat time being the most critical data to be changed on reports and maps.

On July 1941 the Adm Tovey dispatches reported Norfolk and Suffolk at around 15 sea miles from the enemy at open fire and PoW retreat time being 06.13.

Officers directly involved on the cover up : Adm Tovey, RearAdm Wake-Walker ( plus Ltnt Cdr Pinchin )
Officers that supported with no reaction the cover up : Capt Leach, Capt Ellis
Officers that did not support the cover up : Capt Phillips

The RN Admiralty after having unsuccessfully supported the initial Churchill court martial request, accepted the subsequent cover up activities, the Hood Second Board declaration change by WW and the incorrect documents submission.

At the end all the above Officers have been rewarded by the King on October 1941.

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 )

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby alecsandros » Wed Sep 16, 2015 1:18 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:
Immediately after Adm Tovey started the coordination of the “ Cover Up “ changing the most critical data and declarations, in cooperation with RearAdm Wake-Walker.

Norfolk and Suffolk distance to the enemy and PoW retreat time being the most critical data to be changed on reports and maps.

On July 1941 the Adm Tovey dispatches reported Norfolk and Suffolk at around 15 sea miles from the enemy at open fire and PoW retreat time being 06.13.


... A humilliating defeat became a tactical retreat.

Propaganda, IMHO.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby dunmunro » Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:29 pm

When was the first public publication made of an official ( "cover up") account of the battle?

When did the war end?

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3263
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby Antonio Bonomi » Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:33 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

everything was defined with the document :

Home Fleet, 5th July, 1941 - No. 896/H.F. 1325
signed by :
I have the honor to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, JACK C. TOVEY, Admiral Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet.

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 9tovey.htm

And you all know that in that document at point 17 and 19 the " Cover Up " is contained into the statements.

That is the formal document the Admiralty accepted and acknowledged on September 1941, being the report of the facts and based on which the rewarding and decorations were submitted to the King for the October 1941 formal event.

It does not matter that it was published on the London Gazette after the war end, because at that point everything that incorrect document was supposed to enable was already done.

This is the reason why after that we had more than 70 years of incorrect books written on the subject.

Now everything is very simple to be understood.

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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby dunmunro » Fri Sep 18, 2015 8:27 pm

Antonio first proposed that W-W failed to open fire in Norfolk when he was ~20k yds from Bismarck, and that this led W-W (with Tovey's assistance) to instigate a "cover-up" to cover his cowardice and/or dereliction of duty. Norfolk's captain and gunnery team, not withstanding.

Now we are being told that Suffolk also failed to open fire even though she was only 18k yds (or so Antonio-Alberto claim) from Bismarck. Somehow, though we don't know how, W-W was able to communicate with Ellis and his entire gunnery team, prior to the battle, to convince them not to open fire even though Suffolk was in effective gunnery range, and somehow, W-W was also able to convince Bismarck and PE (possibility through a paid lackey AKA "the Baron") not to open fire on either Suffolk or Norfolk either, although both were, according to Antonio-Alberto, within effective gun range as well.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:07 pm

Dunmunro wrote: "W-W was also able to convince Bismarck and PE (possibility through a paid lackey AKA "the Baron") not to open fire on either Suffolk or Norfolk either, although both were, according to Antonio-Alberto, within effective gun range as well."

No need for W-W to convince BS and PG as they guns were already in use......aiming at something bigger....

Ellis explained why he did not open fire, and even if the decision was (IMHO) wrong, we must accept it (an inquiry could have blamed him only IF he did not receive specific orders that his priority was just flak-mark......as Capt. Ellis at least seems to be saying.....

Has anybody ever thought that perhaps the cover up was done not to protect W-W but to elude Adm.Tovey (or RN fighting instructions) responsibility for having "ordered" to the cruisers to just shadow and flank-mark, versus a German Admiral who was able to use a heavy cruiser as a battleship ?

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby dunmunro » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:49 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "W-W was also able to convince Bismarck and PE (possibility through a paid lackey AKA "the Baron") not to open fire on either Suffolk or Norfolk either, although both were, according to Antonio-Alberto, within effective gun range as well."

No need for W-W to convince BS and PG as they guns were already in use......aiming at something bigger....


Bismarck's starboard 5.9in guns were not engaged, and apparently unconcerned about the heavy cruiser, according to you, only 16.5km away. I wonder how much the Baron was paid to give his false range estimates of 22 to 28km? Maybe the Baron wasn't at fault since we all know the poor reputation of German optics... :whistle:

OK, now I see that Antonio really does think that the Baron was part of the cover-up!

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Sat Sep 19, 2015 7:35 am

Dunmunro wrote "Bismarck's starboard 5.9in guns were not engaged.....I wonder how much the Baron was paid to give his false range estimates"

Hi Duncan,
you must have been really shattered by Capt.Ellis autobiography if you know post ironical sentences.....

You are now saying that during a vital battle against 2 battleships the twin starboard aft turret (the others could not possibly even bear) should have wasted ammunition against an heavy cruiser not firing at BS from a distance of 9 sm, given also Lutjens orders ? :negative:

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby dunmunro » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:54 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote "Bismarck's starboard 5.9in guns were not engaged.....I wonder how much the Baron was paid to give his false range estimates"

Hi Duncan,
you must have been really shattered by Capt.Ellis autobiography if you know post ironical sentences.....

You are now saying that during a vital battle against 2 battleships the twin starboard aft turret (the others could not possibly even bear) should have wasted ammunition against an heavy cruiser not firing at BS from a distance of 9 sm, given also Lutjens orders ? :negative:

Bye, Alberto


The KM was furious with Brinkman for not firing torpedoes at maximum range...A single 5.9in hit could have slowed Suffolk sufficiently to have knocked her out of the pursuit. Suffolk's 8in guns posed a serious danger to Bismarck and a deadly danger to PE and the possibility that the KM would ignore such a threat is zero, just as the possibility is zero that an RN captain and gunnery team would ignore two such important targets during a crucial engagement.

I'm shattered that anyone could actually post such fantastical nonsense by stating that they believe that key parts of a report, prepared by ship's staff and submitted for scrutiny to the admiralty, by an RN captain could be falsified, even after I pointed out that the track chart resulting from that report was on display at the Hood Inquiry, where the witnesses called from Suffolk could scrutinize it, while the memory of the action was fresh in their minds.

It's shattering that someone would believe an elderly man's memoirs (or perhaps fail to understand them correctly) over an official report submitted at the time the events actually transpired.

If someone, like yourself, believed that Ellis could have committed such a monstrous crime, why would you or anyone else believe anything he ever said or wrote?

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:36 pm

Dunmunro wrote: "....A single 5.9in hit could have slowed Suffolk sufficiently to have knocked her out of the pursuit..... "

Hi Duncan,
how many hits BS scored with her port 5,9" battery against PoW at ranges that decreased up to 7 sm ? Don't tell me that Lutjens should have ordered the Baron to open fire against Suffolk at 9 sm with any reasonable chance to hit........ :negative:


Dunmunro wrote: "If someone, like yourself, believed that Ellis could have committed such a monstrous crime,...... "

I never said they committed a crime. I always said that the cover up (now irrefutable....) was done for very good propaganda reason during a war. Now after 70+ years, I think it's time for historical truth, don't you ?


".....someone would believe an elderly man's memoirs (or perhaps fail to understand them correctly) over an official report ....."

1) I tell you that now I would not blindly trust a single word of any of your sacred "official reports" written after the end of May, when the cover up was decided.
2) If you don't trust my interpretation, as already suggested to Wadinga, I suggest you to order the autobiography to the Churchill Archives (I can suggest the chapter on the Bismarck episode AND the copy of the "official reports" because, as Antonio said, there are VERY interesting details on them..... :shock: It will cost only 40€, thanks to my suggestion and eliminating other irrelevant files).
It's a more than rewarding investment if you are really willing to understand what happened on May 24.If you want to continue believing to the embellished story, it's your choice.......

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby dunmunro » Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:42 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:


Dunmunro wrote: "If someone, like yourself, believed that Ellis could have committed such a monstrous crime,...... "

I never said they committed a crime. I always said that the cover up (now irrefutable....) was done for very good propaganda reason during a war. Now after 70+ years, I think it's time for historical truth, don't you ?




Ellis wrote and signed an official report that be submitted to the Admiralty. In that report, he stated that Suffolk did a 360d turn at ~0542, to open the range from Bismarck.

You are, flat out, stating that Ellis submitted a false report, as you claim that Suffolk never turned away. Submitting false reports is a crime. OTOH, an old man, whose memory is failing, is not committing a crime when he makes mistakes in an autobiography written years after the events in question.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3268
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby dunmunro » Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:47 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Dunmunro wrote: "....A single 5.9in hit could have slowed Suffolk sufficiently to have knocked her out of the pursuit..... "

Hi Duncan,
how many hits BS scored with her port 5,9" battery against PoW at ranges that decreased up to 7 sm ? Don't tell me that Lutjens should have ordered the Baron to open fire against Suffolk at 9 sm with any reasonable chance to hit........ :negative:




By that logic Bismarck shouldn't have fired her 5.9in guns at all. However, they did open fire, and they did so because they believed that they had a reasonable hit probability.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:52 pm

Dunmunro wrote: "However, they did open fire, and they did so because they believed that they had a reasonable hit probability."

Hi Duncan,
BS needed to engage PoW in some way not leaving her undisturbed. That's why Lutjens ordered PG to shift fire to PoW and fired his own secondary armament.
I think he had already enough enemies around to provoke with the 5,9" an 8" cruiser that was apparently NOT intentioned to open fire.

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Cover up synopsis

Postby Alberto Virtuani » Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:12 pm

Dunmunro wrote: You are, flat out, stating that Ellis submitted a false report, as you claim that Suffolk never turned away. Submitting false reports is a crime!

Hi Duncan,
Yes, I am. However, duringa war, for a good cause, you can be required to sign a false report, if this can help your country to win a war. As you see, I can "interpret" the Articles of War......
Ellis apparently accepted such a request, Phillips probably not.....

Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)


Return to “Bismarck General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests