Wake-Walker : To engage or not to engage ?

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3307
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 6:19 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

I explained since almost 4 years that the " cover up " done on official documents changing the Norfolk and Suffolk distances from the enemy at DS battle was done in order to avoid problems in case an inquiry was going to be called on them.

The point 17 on Tovey dispatches used that incorrect distance to partially justify their missed engagement.

If they had only to flank mark as you stated, why justify their missed engagement at all using an incorrect distance ?

I have demonstrated at what distance they both really where at the commencement of the battle and during the battle.

If they had only to flank mark as they did, ... it was enough to write that they were doing flank mark at the beginning of the action as they were supposed to do.

Writing that they were out of range because of the distance ( incorrect ) and consequently they could not engage Prinz Eugen ... in my opinion means that if was not for the distance they should have done it.

It seems to me a very elementary reasoning, and this is my opinion.

You like to still beleive something different as you wrote. It is OK for me.

We agreed that in case of different opinions we can all live with that.

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
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7513
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

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

Post by RF » Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:17 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:

@ 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.

Then why is it that you feel it necessary to question this officers courage and integrity?

In recognising that we are all fallible can you not appreciate, especially in wartime conditions, that decisions are often a matter of life and death, particulary for senior officers personally and for their men?

The issue of court martial, the decision of whether to re-engage or not, were heat of the moment decisions made with limited knowledge of the whole situation. I can understand wrong decisions and errors as a circumstance of war.

But to cold bloodedly rake such accusations up decades after the event is an entirely different and unforgiveable matter.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3307
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 8:12 pm

Hello everybody,

@ RF,

it is since years that I see you on this forum and you know very well from where we arrived here now.

I arrived to this discussion from the battle track detailed analysis, so bottom up explaining all the many discrepancies in details.

I evaluated those Officers conduct only to sustain the evidence I was demonstrating.

History and the truth should not offend anybody, and this is not and never will be my intent.

Personally, and please take very carefully my opinion here, I feel that those Officers have been " victims " of the time and the events, ... like many others on both sides, ... everything sometimes much bigger and stronger of them on their positions during the war time.

What I am doing is simply history re-construction.

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 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:34 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio I have answered your question in a previous post, Tovey is giving a distance relative to his description of Holland intending the cruisers to engage Prinz Eugen. There is no evidence that anyone else intended that they should.

The missed engagement is only fact if you can,

a) conclusively prove that the evidence of both WW and Ellis regarding follow and flank mark was a lie, and that two co's independant of one another acted in a similar manner due to timidity and not because they assumed their perceived tactical role.

b) conclusively prove that WW headed for Bismarck with the intent to engage and discontinued this action due to the loss of Hood and the withdrawal of PoW.

Best wishes
Cag

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3307
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 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:08 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

NO CAG, I never wanted to prove that Ellis and Wake-Walker must have engaged if closer to the enemy, ... this is just what Adm Tovey wrote on his dispatches point 17, ... and I am ok with it, ... when read in one way ( they should have engaged if closer - like Tovey stated ) or the other ( they were there just to flank mark like you are stating ).

I have my personal idea about an Officer conduct when close to the enemy, ... ref. Articles of War, ... but it is not important now here.

What I have proved is that they were both closer than " around 15 sea miles " during the battle, and consequently that statement is with no fundaments and intentionally written in a misleading way.

If you want or like to counter my statement, ... please demonstrate to me that during the whole battle events, ... lets say from 05:00 until 06:30 they were never closer than around 15 sea miles to the enemy or Prinz Eugen.

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: 1292
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:32 pm

Hello Antonio,

You say:
What I have proved is that they were both closer than " around 15 sea miles " during the battle, and consequently that statement is with no fundaments and intentionally written in a misleading way.
You have never "proved" such a thing. You actually supplied Norfolk's gunnery information which disproved your speculation and then denied its validity, for your reasons.

But you posted:
So disregarding that the gunnery officer wrote that open fire was at 06.06 ( incorrect by any mean ) and assuming it was 05.53 as it was on reality, then we can assume we have 2 available distances between Norfolk and Bismarck, at 05.53 ( open fire ) and at 06.09 ( cease fire ) separated by 16 minutes as stated by the Norfolk gunnery officer.

The 2 distances are at 05.53 equal to 30.400 yards = 15,01 sea miles and at 06.09 equal to 27.200 yards = 13,43 sea miles.
So you have previously agreed it does have "fundaments" :? This is the problem with generating new threads on the same subject as old ones purely in order to "bury" the evidence, just in case new parties come along and might believe already-discredited speculations. The splendid search function means the evidence can be resurrected. Hallelujah!

One of our most esteemed contributors has pointed out that even at the shorter of these ranges Norfolk's fire would be ineffectual.
Norfolk's GO gave a range of 30,400 yds to Bismarck from Norfolk at the open fire time of Hood onto Bismarck which might have actually been outside the maximum possible range of Norfolk's guns, depending on their state of wear, as the maximum range for new guns was only 30,650 yds. In any event, we know from actual trial (at 18:56) that 8in splashes could not be spotted at these long ranges and that any 8in gunfire at those ranges would have been a complete waste of ammunition, as it was at 18:56. We can infer from this that opening fire beyond effective spotting range was not RN gunnery policy in 1941.
All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3307
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 22, 2018 6:20 pm

Hello to all,

the "trolling" is continuing, ... but we have not seen an analogous insistence and intensity in the study of mathematics and geometry, ... in very few trigonometric concepts with few angles and distances, ... really easy to understand.
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg.jpg
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg.jpg (66.83 KiB) Viewed 532 times
Some easily agree on the approach and demonstration showed above contained on the following thread :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231&start=75

Some well known " trolls " certainly do not, ... of course, ... it is better to run away, ... or take time, ... be vague, ..-. never to admit the obvious, ... very easy to be understood ... and come back later with the same old refrain ... endlessly.

What a silly game and strategy ... really poor persons ...

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
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7513
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

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

Post by RF » Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:25 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:

@ RF,

I evaluated those Officers conduct only to sustain the evidence I was demonstrating.
What exactly is this supposed to mean?

You have avoided answering my question directly - namely your motivation in denigrating an officer who is dead and therefore unable to bring you to account by defamation proceedings.
Personally, and please take very carefully my opinion here, I feel that those Officers have been " victims " of the time and the events, ... like many others on both sides, ... everything sometimes much bigger and stronger of them on their positions during the war time.
I agree that they were victims of circumstance - so was Vice Admiral Holland and the crew of HMS Hood - but that does not justify denigration of someone who cannot answer back from the grave.
What I am doing is simply history re-construction. :D
You are going beyond reconstruction when you place your own opinion into it and make assertions that are contentious from it.
There are several possible interpretations of the actions of Tovey and Wake-Walker. All of it is in the realm of speculation but I do not place ulterior motives into their actions. There is no proof that they acted other than in good faith at the time.

If you wish to denigrate such officers then it only opens in my mind whether there is a hidden agenda on your part in doing so. I appreciate that English is not your first language and in fairness I happily disclose that your English is far better than my knowledge of Italian. But I can only say that in appearing to avoid my question then I wonder what the true motivation on your part is - now I may be completely wrong because you have not understood the import of my question, but until you address it then neither I or any other forum member is going to know.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:35 pm

Hello Antonio,

Small steps then.

Did you post this?
So disregarding that the gunnery officer wrote that open fire was at 06.06 ( incorrect by any mean ) and assuming it was 05.53 as it was on reality, then we can assume we have 2 available distances between Norfolk and Bismarck, at 05.53 ( open fire ) and at 06.09 ( cease fire ) separated by 16 minutes as stated by the Norfolk gunnery officer.

The 2 distances are at 05.53 equal to 30.400 yards = 15,01 sea miles and at 06.09 equal to 27.200 yards = 13,43 sea miles.
All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3307
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 22, 2018 8:29 pm

Hello everybody,

@ RF,

now you are taking it personally vs me and accusing me to personally had intentions to denigrate those Officers just because maybe I do not like them ?

If this is your idea you are absolutely wrong and thinking in the wrong direction as I already told you.

I arrived to those analysis following the tracks of their ships and you know it very well.

In order to prove my case, ... the tracks, ... I found any type of opposition especially on the British forum members side this because I had the need to clearly demonstrate that some documents have been intentionally altered and modified on purpose.

Now the tracks are there above for Suffolk and Norfolk, with absolutely well known bearings officially in the documents.

Are you able to check the angles and use a ruler to check the distances and realize that what has been declared has been incorrect ?

I hope so.

Same I did for the PoW turn away track, timing and photo/film correlation.

After you can ask yourself why they incorrectly declared those data, ... as I did for historical reasons to support my explanations,... or just avoid to do it and live peacefully with it.

Bye, Antonio
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: 1292
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:53 am

Hello Antonio,
I found any type of opposition especially on the British forum members
:negative:

You have also been opposed by Americans, Canadians, Germans and Jamaicans(?) Have I left anyone out? :clap:

So disregarding that the gunnery officer wrote that open fire was at 06.06 ( incorrect by any mean ) and assuming it was 05.53 as it was on reality, then we can assume we have 2 available distances between Norfolk and Bismarck, at 05.53 ( open fire ) and at 06.09 ( cease fire ) separated by 16 minutes as stated by the Norfolk gunnery officer.

The 2 distances are at 05.53 equal to 30.400 yards = 15,01 sea miles and at 06.09 equal to 27.200 yards = 13,43 sea miles.
Did you post this Antonio, and if so do you now think it is incorrect? It says 15 miles. The same as Tovey.

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3307
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 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 7:12 am

Hello everybody,

still someone is unable to do geometry and mathematics and use a common ruler to make an easy measure at 06:00 for the Norfolk and at 05:41 for the Suffolk.

Of course, that should only cause an admission of having being wrong, ... and this for an unfair " troll hooligan " is not acceptable.

The refusal to admit what many members has already done, ... from the several countries listed above, ... admitting that those bearings are all correctly traced , .... tells the all story.

The map is there, .... just to be measured.

Evidently someone do not know how to use a ruler ...

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 )

Francis Marliere
Member
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

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

Post by Francis Marliere » Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:50 am

wadinga wrote:You have also been opposed by Americans, Canadians, Germans and Jamaicans(?) Have I left anyone out? :clap:
Fair point. Would you mind adding French member ?
Moreover, I would like to point out that as a French, I am not inclined to defend Britain or the Royal Navy at all cost, quite the contrary.

Best regards to all,

Francis

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3307
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 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:07 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Francis Marliere,

Where is your value add here now ?

Do you know how to use a ruler measuring the above map distances ?

My very good friends Philippe Caresse and Robert Dumas both knows how to do it, are French and are in line with me, so what ?

I will avoid to list all the other friends and supporters from all nations on this planet, ... and many are British, ... since this discussion is simply ridicolous.

If you have evidences to counter or challenge with value add what I am stating, ... bring them out and show it to me.

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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3307
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 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:40 pm

Hello everybody,

it seems that from various part in this world we have problems with rulers, ... with mathematic and geometry.

Here it is, ... so despite your poor competencies, ... you can see the Suffolk distance at 05:41 from the enemy and it was 9,5 sea miles, ... as well as the distance at 06:00 from Norfolk to Bismarck, and it was 12,3 sea miles, ... of course with due relative tolerances.

If you have evidence of the contrary and are able to produce a map like this one, respecting the available known and official bearings, ... and demonstrate to me that the result is different, ... please do it !

I am always willling to learn more from competent and capable persons.
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg.jpg
Plot_redone_bearing_02.jpeg.jpg (71.44 KiB) Viewed 482 times
In case you are not able to do your opinion/theory demostration, ... I suggest you to just avoid to come here in and talk about it, ... you are only showing how little you know about all this.

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 )

Post Reply