Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:59 am

Hi All

I would like to add I am happy to admit I don't have all the answers, I'm not here to try and change anyone's view belief or opinion.

I really respect all those who contribute and work hard to try and understand this battle, it is not easy. It does not matter what kind of theory you have or what opinion, you all put forward your reasons and evidence and accept other points of view or questions.

We have two pieces of evidence that suggest that both British cruisers were of the opinion that their role of shadowing had not concluded, it all depended on the outcome of the battle. That they considered a role of flank marking was their tactical function in the battle (both Ellis and Wake-Walker) but it all went wrong. No evidence has been found that any one asked WW why he did not engage on the 24th nor does anyone know his intentions as the battle progressed.

For a cover up or embellishment or attempt to stop a suggested court martial theory, these pieces of evidence must be answered, as they are fundamental to the premise of a cover up. If there was no case to answer there was no need for a cover up? That is the only reason why I ask them.

I do not say that anyone is wrong in their belief of a cover up, I admit I don't know. The whole collection of evidences are full of inconsistencies both witnesses and inquiry officials admit there are and will be, and trying to work out these things, is hard. If you ask me if there was a cover up I'll answer truthfully, I don't know but I don't believe there is enough evidence to prove conclusively that there was need for one.

There are these fundimental questions that require to be looked at and not just ignored. I have to say to Antonio I do not want to see you fail with any of your work, and I'm definitely not posting here to discredit or denounce your theory, I have these points and if these questions, and others, can be answered beyond reasonable doubt then the truth will be found.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:42 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

do not worry about it.

My works are all published on Storia Militare, after the editor review, you can read them like everybody else.

I am obviously satisfied to find out that every time we find new evidences about those events, ... like the RearAdm W.F. Wake-Walker recorded interview, ... or the Capt R. Ellis auto-bioghraphy before on the Churchill archives, ... they are just adding up more evidence and confirmations to the work I have done on those years, ... last time using also the precious help of Alberto Virtuani.

Anything I can provide you, ... or help you on realize better, ... just feel free to ask.

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 )

User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1100
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by paulcadogan » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:19 am

Hi Antonio and everyone,

Antonio, I thank you for your very kind assessment of me. Maybe too kind! But I'll try to answer you the best way I can, having given things much thought. Please bear with me!
Antonio Bonomi wrote:1) have you tried to realize the real distances of Suffolk and Norfolk on a real scale map, compared to BC1 and the enemy all along those hours ?
Antonio, you know very well I have followed this discussion over the years that it has gone on. I am fully aware and very appreciative of the work done by yourself and others. And yes, it has given a much clearer picture of what all the ships did. As for specific distances and bearings – as you often say, there are many tolerances. Paper measurements can approximate, but the reality, as it appeared to those on the spot, might be quite different.
Antonio Bonomi wrote:2) Did you realize that from 16 sea miles, even considering the different visibility on 2 different directions, in one case there was a direct enemy battleship vs cruiser perfect identification from 16 sea miles, ... in the other hand for more than half an hour somebody thinks he was unable to recognize BC1 warships from the same or less distance until 14 sea miles were reached ( even if we have now a direct WW admission he knew who they were since soon after 5 am, probably from 05:16 ).
Have you noticed that Norfolk ONLY reported seeing 1 enemy ship at 0541. She ASSUMED it was Bismarck “One battleship…..” No mention of PG at that point. Why? PG was not in sight, she was 3000 yards ahead of Bismarck and below the horizon. Again, the range was likely estimated based on what they saw of the ship plus what might have come from the DCT. BC1 was not visible at that time. Remember the Germans did not see Hood & PoW until 0545-0547 - 10 minutes after the latter sighted them – and even then Brinkmann records them as “smoke trails” that rapidly enlarged. That’s a similar discrepancy, isn’t it?
Antonio Bonomi wrote:3) Did you check Norfolk gunnery declared distances on a map with the Norfolk declared course and distances on " The Plot " and versus reality ?
I have a hypothesis regarding Norfolk’s GO’s major time discrepancy, recording the battle as starting at 0606. I suspect, being very human, in his excitement of the moment, he ‘joined the reciprocal club” in reading his time piece. Maybe it was his angle of view and what he read as “about 0606” was actually “about 0554”. Speculation, but there it is for what it’s worth.

Now I’m not very good at precise measurements on track charts, but I do suspect that the reduction in range from Norfolk to Bismarck between 0554 and 0610 based on her track on ‘The Plot”, and the German course alterations due to the torpedo alarms may be reasonably close to 3500 yards (30,700 – 27,200). Of course, those ranges may have been out by a significant amount given the optical conditions that morning, just like PoW’s opening range was. But the key factor is what the GO thought. He stated directly that fire was not opened due to the difficulty in spotting fall of shot.

But hey….what does THAT suggest to you?? He didn’t open fire because he could not spot the fall of shot…. IMHO, that suggests he had orders or permission to open fire when ready! If he didn’t have orders or permission to fire when ready, he could not have used FoS spotting as his excuse for not doing so!

Bottom line…even if his ranges were wrong, (and again, all the plotting and calculations done on paper NOW mean nothing to the man on the spot on May 24, 1941) his actions were based on his findings at the time. And his Admiral and Captain depended on him for that.
Antonio Bonomi wrote:4) Did you read and consider Capt Ellis biography and his own admission on where he was and what he could have done, ... in line with Busch and the Baron reports and ... not according to " The Plot " and his own signed 1941 Official report ?
My thoughts on Ellis? I do think his narrative of events written at the time or immediately after would be more accurate than recollections recorded months or worse years later – knowing how human memory works. PG reported a “mast” on Suffolk’s bearing – that doesn’t compute with seeing a heavy cruiser 9 miles away in reasonably clear conditions. It also means Suffolk was even closer to Bismarck which was a mile and a half astern of PG and that unless the Baron was asleep, he should have been letting loose at Suffolk even before Hood and PoW were sighted! It just doesn’t add up.
Antonio Bonomi wrote:5) Did you check the bearings of all warships during this timeframe ( provided many times from me on many threads ) between those warships, ... because as Sean and Duncan suggested me long time ago, ... distances can be wrong by a huge percentage ( like in this case estimate even using rangefinders ) but the bearings do have a much less error possibility, ... especially when double checked by the declarations on both directions.
As I said in my answer to Q1, whatever might be determined on paper by these methods, whatever the ranges were, the decisions and actions taken by those on the spot were determined by the situation as they saw it. My explanation of Norfolk’s actions speaks to that.
Antonio Bonomi wrote:6) Do you really think that a Royal Navy Rear Admiral in command of a squadron needed an order from a Vice Admiral before engaging the enemy in sight, ... when he realized that his shadowing duty was clearly over and a battle was going to start within few minutes ? What about when he saw that a similar heavy cruiser in the enemy formation was engaging superior warships by opening fire ? What about when Hood was sunk and PoW was alone being hammered by the enemy ? Why he did engage the Bismarck on the 27th of May without having received any order to do so from Adm Tovey on KGV ?
No he didn’t. And Holland didn’t need to give it. Don’t think for one minute that I think Holland was in any way at fault for not signaling the cruisers. His focus was on the enemy and his two capital ships were expected to be quite capable of facing one capital ship and one cruiser. BUT, there is the mistaken ID factor – Holland initially thought PG was astern of Bismarck and therefore the British cruisers coming up from astern would have unimpeded access to her once they got in range.

But still, as a CRUISER, in a capital ship action, with the superior officer on one of the capital ships (who had maintained radio silence during the hunt and approach), Norfolk was handled quite acceptably IMHO – to close with her flagship, before turning to get in the mix once the enemy was heavily engaged.

*****************************************************************************

One more point on Norfolk and what happened when and after Hood blew up – again from the standpoint of the view from Norfolk’s bridge:

Hood blows up and PoW is seen to pass her wreck, very quickly coming under heavy fire from the Germans. Numerous shell splashes, the flash of the crane/funnel hit and the resulting fire and the ship passing (stern on view) just to the right of the huge column of smoke from the sinking Hood would have been seen.
Then PoW turns away and disappears behind the smoke column, making smoke herself. Her gunfire had gone awry as she disappeared – last major salvoes with a wide spread, then they quickly petered out to silence.

All this time the Germans had kept up their assault, continuing for several minutes after PoW was no longer firing…. You hold your breath, wondering what had become of her, having seen what happened to Hood . Eventually, to your relief, she emerges to the left of the smoke cloud, withdrawing. From what you’ve seen you guess that she is heavily damaged. You are now the senior officer on the scene.

Your Gunnery Officer still believes you’re not in effective gun range. Plus, you are on a cruiser with an important shadowing role, and you’ve just seen two of your side’s most powerful ships trounced in mere minutes.

What do you do?

Do you charge at the enemy, firing every gun that would bear until they turn on you too?

Or do you close with your wounded new charge, assess the situation and decide what to do next?

Long post, but I was trying to answer best I could.

Thanks for bearing with me!

Paul :think:
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:43 am

Paul Cadogan wrote: " I do suspect that the reduction in range from Norfolk to Bismarck between 0554 and 0610 based on her track on ‘The Plot”, and the German course alterations due to the torpedo alarms may be reasonably close to 3500 yards (30,700 – 27,200). Of course, those ranges may have been out by a significant amount given the optical conditions that morning, just like PoW’s opening range was. But the key factor is what the GO thought. He stated directly that fire was not opened due to the difficulty in spotting fall of shot. "
Hi Paul,
I feel uncomfortable entering in your discussion with Antonio, and I beg your pardon,
however, assuming "the Plot" track for Norfolk is correct, range could not decrease from the over-estimated 30400 yards (at 5:52, thus to open fire, let's forget the wrong recorded timings.....) to a minimum of 27.200 in 16 minutes (thus 6:08) according to "the Plot" itself and the known track of Bismarck (that turned to West at 6:03 for almost three minutes due to the "torpedo" alarm, thus much reducing the effect of the 5 minutes of Norfolk course 270°from 5:55 till 6:00). :negative:
The key point is that apparently Johnston innocently "omitted" to register the actual minimum distance measured from enemy after 8 minutes, at 6:00 .....

Johnston says why he did not open fire; also Jasper on PG opened fire and was unable to spot the fall of shots of his first vollsalve..... however he insisted and he succeded....:think:
The only way to check the range (that would have been found to be much inferior than the estimate...) was opening fire and W-W did not give this order.

you wrote: "Norfolk was handled quite acceptably IMHO – to close with her flagship, "
Well, in my opinion W-W lacked initiative since the beginning: when at 5:16 he saw the smoke of BC1 he should have acted to prepare his squadron, alerting Ellis, ordering full speed (I still don't se any evidence that this was done.... :think: ), closing the range in a clear way (without an arc, that you interpret as an attempt to close with the flagship, but that makes NO sense at all in case you desperately need to close range) and ordering to open fire to check the distance. As discussed already, there was no danger that BS could aim her guns to Norfolk since 5:35, despite the "heroic" consideration from W-W that we have all listened in his interview.....
BTW, do you know at which exact timing "action station" was ordered on board Norfolk to prepare for the battle ? :think:

you wrote: "My thoughts on Ellis?.... "
Regarding Suffolk distance, it's neither Ellis (18.000 yards) nor Busch (176 hectometers) that demonstrate Suffolk was at around 10 miles from enemy before the battle: they just confirm it. The fact is demonstrated by the "DoD" (polygon) of bearings that nail SF very close to the enemy (before turning north due to the "mirage"). The last battlemap of Antonio clearly shows this situation and no other complete map has been produced to support any different scenario (except the intentionally incorrect Pinchin's "PLot"....).
Why didn't BS open fire at her ? Lutjens didn't want to waste ammunition against a ship that could easily (as happened the evening before even with NF from 7 sm distance...) sail away quickly under smoke. BTW, it was not the first time SF was at such a distance from enemy: she was even closer at 2:56 during the night.....

I do suggest you to study in detail this last battlemap (that I will be glad to send you in a mail) and to verify its correct usage of all the reliable information available.



In conclusion, while I agree with you that W-W behavior from 5:16 till 6:00 may still be considered "border line" by a benevolent jury in case of an inquiry, being excused with the blind obedience to the fighting instructions, the comparison with PG is so embarrassing that the story needed anyway to be embellished to allow rewards to the 2 British cruisers..

I will not comment on W-W behavior and leadership after Hood blew-up (I think I remember it took to him 20 minutes to ask PoW what was happening.... :negative: ) , let's focus for the time being on his (in)action up to 6:00....


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:43 am, edited 1 time 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)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:42 am

Hello everybody,

@ Paul Cadogan,

first of all I like to thank you both for the time you dedicated on responding to me, ... as well as for the non pre-conceived attitude on responding my questions, ... not to forget the wise and competent analysis you did on the points I asked, ... :clap:

I know that you, .. like many others on this forum and even from outside of it, ... are following this interesting discussion since years, ... with lots of interest too, ... like all of us, ... from the historical, military and strategical stand point, ... only, ... of course.

Many thanks for the nice compliments on my work that yes, ... I do know that for the first time since many years, ... tried to provide a precise view of the events and the warship positions on an accurate map, ... the best I can do.

I like in particular one statement from you :
" Paper measurements can approximate, but the reality, as it appeared to those on the spot, might be quite different ".
That is why in my personal opinion it was always the personal Commanding Officer attitude to make the difference while " on the HOT spot ".

Lets go into the interesting point in discussion :

1 ) The cross bearings does not give to many chances of errors, ... and do provide a much " closer " battlefield when compared to " The Plot " that was made just for the opposite reason, ... to enlarge the battlefield and consequently better supporting greater distances declarations in order to easily justify the events.

2 and 3 ) YES, ... of course, ... and that is another very interesting point to be analyzed when compared and merged with the 05:52 correct 2 enemy ships identification from just only one sea mile closer, ... 16 sea miles at 05:41 and one enemy battleship declared, ... versus 15,01 sea miles ( 304 = 30.400 yards ) and 2 enemy warships correctly identified with cruiser ahead and the battleship following her at 05:52 ( open fire = initial range ), ... and with the 16 minutes after ( 05:53 + 16 = 06:09 ) taken measurement from the Norfolk Gunnery Officer LtntCdr Johnston of 13,43 sea miles ( 272 = 27.200 yards ).
The problem here is that one between LtntCdr Johnston and " The Plot " by PInchin is NOT correct for sure, ... because between 05:55 and 06:00 it seems from " The Plot " that Norfolk closed the distances on the enemy. How it is possible that the Gunnery Officer did not notice of being closer to the enemy ( around 13 sea miles for " The Plot " or even closer drawing a correct scale map ) and did NOT record it ?

I see why you think that LtntCdr Johnston did NOT open fire on this occasion, ... we should have asked him why he did it from even a greater distance after and on May 27th. Looking at what was going on, ... opening fire was NOT going to be an error even if unable to initially spot his fall of shots, ... in my opinion.

5 ) I agree, and as I said above, ... it all depends on the attitude of the Commander Officer.

6 and 4 ) This is one critical point, since Adm Tovey and later Sir L. Kennedy on Pursuit " speculated " on this missed order to unfairly load ViceAdm Holland with a responsibility for the missing engagement of Suffolk and Norfolk that he did not have at all.

As we are realizing now, bot RearAdm Wake-Walker as well as Capt Ellis were close enough to decide what to do and took their own decision based on the situation and their attitude on that moment. Right or wrong I think we shoudl be now all in agreement that this was the reality they were into, ... close enough, ... but NOT assuming it was necessary and due to engage immediately, ... and assuming that the " shadowing " duty was not over yet, ... :shock: ... they probably kept this attitude approach and just waited the events to develop further more in their favor, ... considering also the unexpected sudden discovery of the Prinz Eugen being ahead and NOT back to the Bismarck.

When Hood exploded, ... I personally think that no matter what your distance was, ... in good range or at the limits, ... the immediate opening fire to help PoW was needed, ... but again, ... it was a matter of attitude.
" You hold your breath, wondering what had become of her, having seen what happened to Hood . Eventually, to your relief, she emerges to the left of the smoke cloud, withdrawing ".
Surely the above was not going to be my personal Officer attitude on that moment having the possibility to fire and try to help the newest RN battleship still engaged to win that battle, ... given the superiority 3 versus 2 that they still had on that moment.

Anyway, what comes out of this analysis is in any case, ... is an Officer using a very conservative and careful shadowing role approach, ... relying a lot on Suffolk duty rather than doing it personally, ... unable to switch from the shadower to an aggressive combat attitude, ... unable to join the battle when still there were possible chances to damage the enemy that must be stopped as soon as possible, ... unable to put together a re-engagement even if invited to do so from his own Admiralty, ... and loosing the enemy at the end, ... despite having 3 ships to shadow them.

The only positive value add thing from Norfolk occurred on May 27th, when the Norfolk was able to open fire at 08:54 from a long distance on Bismarck, ... even if NOT ordered by Adm Tovey to do so.

Good discussion, ... thanks.

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 )

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2015
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by wadinga » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:18 am

Hi All,

No time for reasoned comment- off to Duxford to watch Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Paul :ok: you may recall I wrote a similar scenario- in touch with reality. I like your robust response.

Antonio & Alberto - you're on the back foot! :D

All the best

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

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:19 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio, thank you for your kind offer as always it is much appreciated. I agree fully that to understand this action the critical questions must be answered.

You also have a good point regarding the differences between Norfolks actions on the 24th and on the 27th. Could the main differences between the two actions be

a) that the tactical function of Norfolk was entirely different on each occaission?
b) that the atmospheric conditions were different?
c) that the threat of losing contact with Bismarck on the 27th was less?

Perhaps the two actions are not comparable? I'm not sure, anyway it was just a thought.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:25 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

the majority of the questions are now answered and the evidence and record clearly demonstrate the cover up occurred on the Official document.

I will not repeat once again the whole list of them, It is enough to read them, understand and mostly accept the reality as it shows.

As you correctly realize, ... the 27th of May had a different situation from the 24th, ... when the fire was NOT opened, ... despite the very similar enemy distance, ... but surely it was much less " dangerous " on the 27th, ... and we know somebody was very reluctant to run in danger by closing on the enemy, ... :wink:

That is what count, ... he could but he did not, ... not because of the distance as somebody liked to try to explain on his dispatches, ... and now we know it was NOT the case at all.

@ Wadinga,

never walked straight ahead so relaxed and comfortable, ... especially after having found the recorded interview of Wake-Walker, ... that just like Capt Ellis, ... is just confirming what I always tried to tell you, ... without you accepting the reality.

It should be a very spectacular view the Spitfires and Hurricanes, ... I am jealous of you now ... back on my 1/100 Tirpitz model now, ... :wink:

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 )

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag » Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:40 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio, well there was much less threat of losing touch with the Bismarck on the 27th I suppose? Plus the situation was tactically different?

I think the main point would be if in the opinion of their Lordships Wake-Walker, and we must not forget Ellis as he commanded a ship on the scene, were doing and did the right thing, there would be no case to answer and so no need for a cover up? Our opinions are valid today as to what we think he should have done, but it was Wake-Walkers contemporaries and commanders opinions that counted in 1941.

If you could find evidence of their Lordships asking why both cruisers either did not engage, or why their commanding officers thought that their role was to 'follow or flank mark' (Ellis biography and Norfolk gunnery and RDF report in ADM 234/509), then you would have more power to your elbow?

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:20 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

maybe you have lost part of the last period threads, ... but I remind you that the Official documents intentional alteration, .. the so called " Cover Up ", ... has been already well demonstrated, ... the reality published on the italian history magazine Storia Militare on February 2017 with number 281, ... so I do not need to do anything anymore about it.

You can read it on the dedicated thread about it :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799

What I was underlining, ... given the recently available ( to me ) RearAdm Wake-Walker recorded interview, ... is the fact that many of his own declarations are just perfectly confirming all my intuitions about what he knew, ... since 05:16, ... and did ( mostly he did not ) that morning, ... as well as his personal attitude, ... especially when he stated :
1) 00.07 seconds ... about 7.30 in the evening at a most inconvenient time, just as I was going to have my dinner ...

2) 00.20 seconds ... 6 miles away, at an uncomfortably close range ...

3) 00.35 seconds ... the Norfolk working out at the port side of the enemy, but keeping out of sight ...

4) 00.48 seconds ... there is always a danger running at the enemy, ... at a close range ...
No need to comment any further, ... it is enough to listen to his own interview ... to understand everything ... :wink:

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 )

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:30 pm

Cag wrote: "I think the main point would be if in the opinion of their Lordships Wake-Walker, and......Ellis...., were doing and did the right thing,
Hi Mr.Cag,
after having provided intentionally incorrect (e.g.Pinchin's Plot) , clearly incomplete (e.g.Norfolk Gunnery Report) and astutely misleading (e.g.Tovey's despatches point 17) reports , everybody approved.

I'm not sure that a serious Inquiry/Court Martial would have accepted such "evidences" without asking questions...... :think:


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)

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:21 pm

Hi All

Thanks Antonio, I have seen a lot of the recent and old posts regarding this, I agree there are differences and anomalies etc (there are page after page in the interviews in the 2nd board and from board one to two), even Blake himself admitted that his diagrams were 'subject to correction pending analysis' and indeed Wake-Walker in his interview at the 2nd board states he is using the track charts that his has with him.

You have demonstrated they are there I agree, but there are still critical fundimental questions remaining unanswered. The intentional alteration of maps etc is very hard to prove, you understand the amount of work to sort out the incorrect positions of ships and the corrections made at the time when ships of both sides realised their estimations were wrong. For example we also say that there is evidence of embellishment to cover up of the cowardice of Wake-Walker on the morning of the 24th. Yet we don't answer the question as to whether for the powers that be there was need to cover anything up at all. That Wake-Walker acted as they would have acted. Please be clear I am not saying you are wrong I am asking if these questions should be the first ones to be answered as they may colour the rest.

We know from Ellis that he considered his role of shadowing was not over pending the outcome of the main action, Norfolk was in the same position, but to say that just because Wake-Walker did not engage therefore he had no intention to is hard to understand, we dont know his intentions or what may have occurred had the battle been longer and shadowing became less strategically important, the loss of Hood changed everything.

As for the recorded interview the things you point out are not really indicative of a coward. Most are factual comments, similar to some given by others in the interviews or books I've read, and one is an amusing piece of bravado about his dinner. Surely these comments are not taken as proof of a cover up?

I also agree that you have published your work, with the aid of Alberto, and congratulate you both on this, speaking as someone who is not a published author I am in awe of anyone who is. Again please note I do not say you are wrong, in reality who am I to comment on anyone's work, and your work is already published, I am just asking that perhaps these questions that hang over the issue could be investigated and an attempt made to answer them? If you feel they do not require to be answered or are not important, again no problem.

I look forward to your Tirpitz model and future books, please do not take this post as a question of the validity of your work my friend,, it is not, I am just concerned we are leaving fundimentaly important questions behind unanswered I hope you understand.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:43 pm

Cag wrote: "to say that just because Wake-Walker did not engage therefore he had no intention to is hard to understand, we dont know his intentions or what may have occurred had the battle been longer "
Hi Mr.Cag,
I do understand all your considerations however, did W-W order "action stations" on board Norfolk on May 24 ? :think:

you wrote: "As for the recorded interview the things you point out are not really indicative of a coward."
Maybe...., but his leader's stature in wartime emerges clearly from his words. :oops:


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)

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Cag » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:25 pm

Hi All

Hi Alberto firstly may I congratulate you also for your work with Antonio. To the comments,

Comment 1. Is I think as comical as a Vice Admiral gets!
Comment 2. 6 miles is uncomfortably close for a cruiser up against a battleship, surely a statement of fact not of cowardice?
Comment 3. Again not really indicative of cowardice unless maintaining a safe position (much like Suffolk) and tracking your enemy until larger forces appear is cowardly?
Comment 4. No doubt a cruiser running at an enemy at close range is fraught with danger, again surely without argument very factual?

No doubt we could sift through all action reports and take snippets that when we highlight certain parts may be made to appear in any way one likes, pro or con. Does Wake-Walker sound apologetic in the interview, or embarrassed? Or is he matter of fact telling you from memory the practical nature of occurrences?

If you believe the professional officers who made up their Lordships had the wool pulled over their eyes so be it, but surely the first question raised is did they need it to be?

I hope the points I've raised are valid, if not please ignore them

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck original KTB still existing ?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:34 am

Hi Mr.Cag,
thanks for your nice words, my contribution to Antonio's historical work has been indeed very limited, but I have enjoyed working with him and I have learnt a lot of things.

Again, I agree the 4 comments are not necessarily a proof of cowardice, however they provide a good idea of the officer mediocrity.
You will surely agree with me that you have heard more "aggressive" (or at least "dignified") words from other flag officers during WWII, to use nice words, especially in an interview that could be used for war "propaganda" purposes.....
BTW do you know if and when the interview was transmitted to the radio ? :think:


You are right also there is no shame at all in W-W words, that confirms what we always suspected, that (unlike Leach, who immediately realized he had done something that "clearly invited most critical examination") he was dumbly unaware, on May 28, about the "anger" of Churchill/Pound and that he was even proud of his role (of course, looking at Bismarck been sunk). This is confirmed by his first board of inquiry declarations, before someone explained him that he should have told another story to get out of this situation.


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)

Post Reply