Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:04 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

we have long discussed this point and I do not think any of us will change his own opinion about it and I will not repeat my one again.

The morning action was not mentioned into the Court Martial attempt reasons by Adm Pound, but just the fact that they altered the distances into the records in order to protect Norfolk and Suffolk positiosn and the related conduct on that moment tells the whole story about it.

Same for the afternoon re-engagement, where I think that it was not common for a RN Flag Officer to be asked about his intention to engage the enemy while at sea and in condition to do so.

Anyway, the story went the way we know and WW escaped the whole things with no charges.

He was promoted and his career progressed like nobody else I know in any navy, ... looking at his credits before and after, ... but surely not at sea anymore, ... probably more thru the Westminster Abbey cerimonies ...

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: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Cag » Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:58 am

Hi All

Hi Antonio, the morning action was not mentioned in the CM because the cruisers did what they were supposed to do.

I'm afraid just repeating over and over your view until people give up is not proof of fact. Your belief that the alteration was intentional to save WW from an imagined threat is something I'm happy to accept but it is not fact.

We have discussed that there are more logical robust defences that WW would be able to call upon in any hypothetical critisism of his actions during the morning battle without resorting to go to the lengths of senior officers deceiving not only the Board of the Admiralty but also the complicity of many more senior officers in the 2nd Board of Inquiry of the Hood.

Just how many people were supposedly complicit in a cover up of something that was never actually a threat? All for one apparently inept timid officer?

Best wishes
Cag.

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

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:15 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

what you listed above are facts and you can find them into the still available Official documents.

They are all easy to be realized now after the analysis we went thru those years.

If one is willing to understand and accept them is another story.

I understand that is disturbing you the fact that it is ridiculous that they went from a Court Martial trial to the rewarding of those Officers, but this is simply what really occurred.

The fact that you and some others are keep on coming here in with the main intent to refute and counter every statement on and on endlessly is what everybody is realizing now.

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: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Cag » Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:12 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio, nothing is really disturbing me at all. The one thing I seem to see is the constant attempt to link the shadowing or the morning cruiser distance, or the loss of contact with a completely different CM threat.

The file after file of documentary evidence is there, it is how we interpret them not understand them that changes. Logic rules not a what if or maybe.

If someone puts forward a statement or an opinion with which I can agree and is based on fact, and if you care to look back through the various threads I have done so including some of your own, I have no problem in doing so.

Should I read an opinion and be told that I and every one else must now realise it is a fact without making a small attempt to suggest that although it may be a valid opinion, it is not a fact?

Or If I feel a thread has been purposely started just to have another attempt to link together things that do not appear to be linked to prove an intentional alteration was done to stop a critisism that we have no evidence of, in fact we actually have evidence from witnesses that a certain officer never put a foot wrong, it is surely right to point this out?

Or if that thread has been started to simply to have another crack at that certain officer and suggest serious failings calling him at best timid, is it not the right thing to do to point out that this timid man actually faced more danger of death on a daily basis than we who call him timid?

I'm sure you are happy with your research and will one day publish your findings, but I'm not sure why we keep on going over and over the same arguments, or creation of new threads on things that have been already discussed in others.

Peoople either agree with us, or disagree or cannot be certain. I accept your view, I hope you accept mine, the various threads hold those views, therefore let's allow each individual the freedom to read these and make up their own mind.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by RF » Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:40 am

Cag wrote: Should I read an opinion and be told that I and every one else must now realise it is a fact without making a small attempt to suggest that although it may be a valid opinion, it is not a fact?
This is a very common tactic used in political argument to close down any genuine debate and to shut people up, where the proponent has no real evidence to support their ''facts.''
A very good example of that is in the ''climate change'' scam where ''climate scientists'' expect us to believe what they say because they say so and don't have to justify anything because they are ''climate scientists.''
Or if that thread has been started to simply to have another crack at that certain officer and suggest serious failings calling him at best timid, is it not the right thing to do to point out that this timid man actually faced more danger of death on a daily basis than we who call him timid?
Fair question.
I'm sure you are happy with your research and will one day publish your findings, but I'm not sure why we keep on going over and over the same arguments, or creation of new threads on things that have been already discussed in others.
Another fair question.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

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

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:17 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG and RF,

so lets list the facts first :

1) The 2 Hood board on Inquiry contain 2 different Wake-Walker distance declarations of the Norfolk from the Hood at 06:00 on May 24th, 1941.
On the first board he signed for 20.000 yards and later, on the second board he declared that distance being 30.000 yards.

2) To change his previous signed declaration, RearAdm Wake-Walker used " The Plot", a document done the day before by Pinchin that we have demonstrated being basically incorrect.

3) On the letter from Adm Tovey to Stephen Roskill, Tovey declared that there was a phone call probably on May 30th, 1941 where Adm Pound asked Tovey a trial for Court Martial for RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach for not having re-engaged the Bismarck in the afternoon of May 24th, 1941. Tovey strong reaction defeated the attempt for that inquiry/trial for Cort Martial.

As you can read we are not talking here about the opinions we can have after having read and understood those facts.

Now a question to both of you : do you agree those are facts ?

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: 1903
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by wadinga » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:58 pm

Hello Antonio,
3) On the letter from Adm Tovey to Stephen Roskill, Tovey declared that there was a phone call probably on May 30th, 1941 where Adm Pound asked Tovey a trial for Court Martial for RearAdm Wake-Walker and Capt Leach for not having re-engaged the Bismarck in the afternoon of May 24th, 1941. Tovey strong reaction defeated the attempt for that inquiry/trial for Cort Martial.
Based on the actual text of this letter, kindly supplied by Alberto, which subjugates the supposed CMDS below the "Shores of France" signal complaint and also the three other letters summarised by Alberto, all of which are concerned with this non-existent signal, which were sent by Tovey over a period of 11 years, we can now be more confident than ever before that it is not, and never was a fact..
This is a very common tactic used in political argument to close down any genuine debate and to shut people up, where the proponent has no real evidence to support their ''facts.''
:ok:

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: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Cag » Thu Jan 18, 2018 5:32 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio,

1) the 2 boards stated different approximated distances (as did Tovey In his despatch I believe as well as Ellis in his biography), this was the distance before Hood was sunk. Blake intentionally qualified in his findings that the drawings etc may require correction but were sufficient for the purpose. We know that both 20 000 and 30 000 yds estimates were incorrect, they were estimates.

2) Wake-Walker used whatever approximated evidence he had at his disposal from Norfolk and Suffolks tracks and Pinchins map to present to the board in the 2nd inquiry. One thing the board noticed was that the vast majority of the evidence had changed between the two boards of Inquiry.

3) Tovey wrote a letter giving his recollection of a phone call regarding the threat of a CM of Wake-Walker and Leach regarding re engaging Bismarck after Hood sank when Tovey had reached port. After his phone call he heard no more about it.

These are facts.

1) The distance from either cruiser to Hood or Bismarck given in either board is a deliberate intentional change to stop a critisism of Wake Walker and Ellis.

2) This critisism of Wake-Walker and Ellis was for not engaging Bismarck during the morning action that required covering up.

3) The plot was deliberately manufactured with the knowledge of all officers involved including senior officers and deliberately done to mislead not only the Board of the Admiralty but the 2nd Hood inquiry to divert critisism of Wake-Walker and Ellis.

4) Tovey deliberately mislead the Board of the Admiralty with complete acquiesce of Pound, Alexander, Phillips and other senior board members to stop critisism of Wake-Walker and Ellis.

May I ask do you agree these are opinions?

Do we know for certain that Norfolk and Suffolk were to engage or do we have evidence to suggest they were to follow and flank mark. Did the senior officer on Hood signal them to engage or attempt to concentrate the force? Was there time to attempt a concentration or for Norfolk to position itself to attack if possible and time it's fire with BC1? (my opinion is no on both counts)

Do we have any evidence that there was any critisism of either Ellis or Wake-Walker for not engaging Bismarck during the morning action or do we have evidence from multiple sources suggesting he never put a foot wrong?

Do we have plausible factual evidence as to why PoW did not re engage Bismarck immediately or at a later point? Do we have evidence that PoW did re engage Bismarck when neccessary and that Wake-Walker and Tovey separately before collusion took place did not want Bismarck pushed West?

We have seen quite a few threads started implying or suggesting certain things but in reality what has the shadowing of Bismarck by the cruisers, the distance from Norfolk or Suffolk to Hood, or even the loss of contact of Bismarck got to do with a threat of CM for not re engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk defeated by Tovey in a phone call?

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by RF » Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:09 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

Now a question to .....you : do you agree those are facts ?
Yes - without any interpretation placed on them with regards to motivation and intent.

You have to accept that people are human and can change their minds into how they see things and understand them, particulary when it comes to remembering things.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

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

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:40 pm

Hello everybody,

@ RF,

I thank you for your fairness on recognizing the above being all clear facts.

I agree, we are all human and we can all make failures in many ways and situations.

@ CAG,

similarly I thank you and applaud your fairness as well on recognizing those being facts.

What you wrote after are my opinions on the only reasons I can logically associate to the above occurred facts.

But if you have a different opinion and a different way to logically justify those actions or disclosures, I am here to listen to your version of the story, respectful of your opinion while I keep mine, just as I wrote already several times.

Please read Adm Tovey dispatches point 17. In particular this statement :
... the Norfolk and Suffolk, therefore, shadowing from the eastward and northward respectively at a range of about 15 miles, were not in a position to engage the Prinz Eugen ...
Am I right if I realize from the above statement that, ... if Norfolk and Suffolk where going to be in position and condition to engage the Prinz Eugen, ... they would have done it ? It seems to me very easy and logic to be understood.

We have the evidence ( fact above ) that they altered the distances not to have to justify this situation.

Please do not mix up different subjects of this historical re-construction.

One thing is the Court Martial attempt for 2 well known and defined reasons vs 2 known Officers, ...

.... another is the possible result of an inquiry related to the whole operation conduct by every Officer engaging or not engaging and having declared and signed a distance from the Hood/enemy that can cause problems to him/them in case of an inquiry , ...

... a third and complete different subject is the KGV fuel and Adm/C in C HF messages discussion, ...

... a fourth and again complete different situation is the CS1 loss of contact with the enemy ...

Those arguments can have the same Officers involved, ... like many other in the future too, ... but are very distinct matter of discussion to be clearly understood one by one, ... at least this is the way I see it.

This is the reason why I try to keep them all separated and I have opened always new threads as needed to focus them one by one.

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
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:01 am

Antonio Bonomi wrote: ....
Please read Adm Tovey dispatches point 17. In particular this statement :
... the Norfolk and Suffolk, therefore, shadowing from the eastward and northward respectively at a range of about 15 miles, were not in a position to engage the Prinz Eugen ...
In for a penny, in for a pound:
...who was now stationed ahead of the Bismarck on a course of 240°.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

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

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:30 am

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nillson,

that can justify why they did not do it, ... thus again confirming the fact that in the opposite case they should have done it too.

But this define the matter in a very different way compared to what somebody is trying to state and wrote.

One thing si to state that they were around 15 sea miles away and were shadowers only, so not supposed to engage at all.

A complete different matter is to state that they could and should have done it, but because by surprise there was the Bismarck in between them they delayed their decision to a later battle situation.

Is my reasoning logic enough ?

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: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Cag » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:40 am

Hi All

Hi Antonio,

I think Tovey was explaining why Hollands intention that the cruisers were to engage Prinz Eugen was not done. Holland's intention was not communicated to the cruisers, as you can see Tovey states that they were about ie approximated not exact, 15nm miles, and were not in a position to engage Prinz Eugen.

So he is not defending WW, he is explaining in a despatch why AC(Q)s or Holland's intention was impracticable. Perhaps, as many informed naval officers in the Roskill papers suggest, Holland had either communicated his intent or had used his estimated plot to concentrate on the cruisers things may have been different. But they show that this is a in hindsight opinion (similar to their opinion as to his detachment of the destroyers) and Holland cannot be criticised for doing what appeared to be the logical thing.

Holland was there to intercept and engage, WW was not, he was to follow and flank mark unless ordered otherwise.

Again I accept your opinion but we have facts that say it was not the opinion of the Admiralty.

Best wishes
Cag.

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

Re: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:57 am

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

I agree with you.

Tovey was explaining that occurrence.

I only have couple of problems with that, ... the distance he declared ( around 15 sea miles ) that was not correct during the whole period starting 05:35 until 06:09, ... and the fact that everything ( missed engagement and distance ) was related to an Holland missed previous order.

More, that statement does not have a precise time relation and it is positioned between point 16 and 18, ... consequently is is smartly written in a misleading way, ... because the end time of point 16 is 03:40 and the starting time of point 18 is 05:35.

Did you realize at what time that around 15 sea miles measurement statement would apply ?

NOTE : the credit for this " timing logic flow " discovery goes to Herr Nillson

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: Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Post by Cag » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:45 am

Hi All

Hi Antonio

But do you realise that if we have evidence from more than one independant source that the cruisers tactical function was to follow and flank mark, which they did and attempted to do, and the tactical function of BC1 was to engage Bismarck, which they did, everyone did everything they were meant to?

We would only have a missed engagement if an engagement was meant or ordered to happen. The only other way we could have a missed engagement is if when Wake-Walker headed for Bismarck his intent was to engage, but the speedy destruction of Hood and the withdrawal of PoW meant he had missed his opportunity to do so.

Again we are being asked to believe there was a missed opportunity based on no evidence an opportunity was meant to happen or was attempted and other events denied it, and this missed opportunity had to be covered up to defend officers from critisism we have no evidence actually occurred.

Best wishes
Cag.

Post Reply