The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3740
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:43 pm

Hello everybody,

also in the note 1 of the Epilogue, where Kennedy covered the towing signal we can read no direct references to Sir Churchill book nr 3 at page 282.
Kennedy_Epilogue_note_1.jpg
Kennedy_Epilogue_note_1.jpg (74.88 KiB) Viewed 4491 times
No mention of Adm Pound intention to expunge the message from the records as written by Adm Tovey and no mention of Sir Churchill book statements.

We can read only Sir Kennedy novel, ... his personal interpretation of the all story.

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 )

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by northcape » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:52 pm

Anybody who has read Kennedy's book, can only be amazed by the amount and accuracy of well-researched information packed into such a small book. To imply that Kennedy made up a story is almost comical. Kennedy created a master piece, using a novelist's language and story line to represent a wealth of accurate (and dry) information.

Actually, I don't get any of these hundreds of pages and dozens of threads. What is the purpose?

There was a tough and very eventful chase on the oceans going on, including the sinking of the Hood and culminating in the sinking of the Bismarck. In-between these two events, a very stressed and depressed Churchill (given the other bad news from the war at this time) got mad at some of his officers and suggested to court-martial them, or maybe his First Lord thought that this is what his master wants him to do. After the sinking of the Bismarck, this anger turned into cheerfulness and everything was forgotten. People got on with much more important business. Some actions which have occcured during this intensively packed few days, were possibly put into a more positive light in some official reports afterwards, such that the actual effort to win the war would not be impeded. Again, please look at the actual happenings and results (Bismack sunk) - all happened in a very short time - , and then tell me how can any of the officiers be critiziced (in a bad way) for anything by somebody in a office chair 80 years later, based on sparse documents and second-hand literature? What is the purpose of this exercise?

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3740
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:38 am

Hello everybody,

@ Northcape,

I think you got almost all the point right in your summary.

I have read dozen of times with pleasure Sir Kennedy book since I was 12 years old, ... a very well written book with a lot of details, ... but as I have demontrated some events are not historically correct and have been made out of his personal interpretation of the story.

Why all this discussion started ?

Very easy answer, ... because there was the need for a very detailed Denmark Strait battle map with photo correlation, ... to properly position the Prince of Wales during her turn away disengaging, ... and after the Norfolk and the Suffolk tracks in relation to the other warships of course.

This apparently was very hard to be accepted by some here in and I had to go thru a very intense and deeply researched demonstration of why all the things went the way they occurred in order to do it.

I like very much the summary first part you wrote on your above post, and I sincerely applaud you for this :clap:

This part :
There was a tough and very eventful chase on the oceans going on, including the sinking of the Hood and culminating in the sinking of the Bismarck.
In-between these two events, a very stressed and depressed Churchill (given the other bad news from the war at this time) got mad at some of his officers and suggested to court-martial them, or maybe his First Lord thought that this is what his master wants him to do.
After the sinking of the Bismarck, this anger turned into cheerfulness and everything was forgotten.
People got on with much more important business.
Some actions which have occcured during this intensively packed few days, were possibly put into a more positive light in some official reports afterwards, such that the actual effort to win the war would not be impeded.
I think that any reasonable person on this forum and the incoming occasional readers cannot avoid to agree about it.
That is the correct way to summarize this event historically.

Last, let me explain you why the need to carefully analyze those officers actions and reports correlate with my first point here above, ... the warship correct tracks and distances, ... because that was and still has been the only reason why this analysis as been done, ... nothing personal against any Officer of course.

In order to properly draw those tracks I had the need to demosntrate in full details all the available evidence and why they have been written and made the way they have been as you correctly explained above, ... in order to separate the good/valid inputs from the corrected/wrong ones and finally been able to make a properly historically evaluated final conclusions for my battle map.

Written in this way it seems easy and I should have not found any reluctancy on doing it, ... it is just history for a more than 70 years old battle, .. in reality you can read the type of opposition on doing it I have found.

Anyway, ... now it is all over and done, ... so I can spend time with a message enigma like this one, ... that is just one of the many occurrences happened under the circumstances you correctly described above, ... nothing else, ... and which one of the 2 solutions is the correct one is not so important, ... unless for a very pragmatic and precise historian researcher.

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: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by wadinga » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:59 pm

Hello All,

Here is NEW INFORMATION from a recent visit to the National Archives. This personal letter from Tovey to Pound was written on 30th May to accompany his preliminary report, ie before any argumentative phone call with Pound. I do not believe any author has referred directly to this letter before.

Note that it clearly describes Tovey's technical reason for not reporting by radio continuously throughout the battle and tactfully addresses the one and only ROOF signal to Tovey- received long after the battle. It humorously reports the signal he wanted to send instead of "Cannot get her to sink with gunfire" which provoked the 11:37B. Tovey makes not the slightest reference to any earlier ROOF signal in this private letter, therefore this is definitive proof that the "Shores of France" was something he imagined later.

This document is Crown Copyright. It is presented without redactions.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Happy reading

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3740
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Feb 27, 2018 2:02 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

Sean, I had decided time ago not to write to you any longer until you had changed your approach here in.

If the posting of this new document is a sign of a changing attitude, ... leaving the stubborn and blind opposition single side taken you declared several times, ... and finally accepting the correct reconstruction of the events being the real and only goal we all have here in, ... accepting the results for what they are, ... with no problems and a broadminded approach ... then I will restart discussing with you.

There are several private letters and documents that can change and modify the reality and the perception of what we know occurred during this operation, ... on both sides, ... and the one you have posted is surely one of them, ... :clap:

But again as said what is important is to be able to work on them SUPER PARTES ( with NO side taken ) and take the result for what it is, ... just an historical re-construction of a naval operation occurred more than 70 years ago.

NO country or political side taken, nothing personal against anybody on both sides too.

Are you going to be able to commit yourself on doing it with this attitude from now on ?

I like your position and answer about it, ... and someone else to think about it as well.

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: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by wadinga » Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:11 pm

Hello Antonio,

A most magnanimous offer- Noblesse oblige etc


Except that as the perpetrator of the "Couple of traitors" slur, I do not consider you at all super partes, an impartial researcher or whatever and consequently I will continue to present what I consider to be the truth- much like the Official Story - which you contend to be an 80 year old lie. It would certainly help things if you would tone down comments like Troll or loser since I find such observations are not conducive to the sharing of information.

Now to business conducted in a civilised manner. Do you accept that the phrasing:
and unfortunately I did not appreciate until much later how regrettable an impression you had received.
page 5

clearly refers to the receipt of the 11:37B? Since there is nothing mentioned here which could remotely apply to a "Shores of France" message, we may now, like Roskill and Kennedy conclude that it is unlikely such a message was ever sent, and therefore Tovey had imagined it or based it on some other recollection, when he started talking about it in the 1950s.

You say you have independent confirmation of the CMDS threat, can this throw any light on things?

I am currently hunting for a Pound letter to Tovey, dated 28th May, which crossed with this letter in transit, and was delivered to Tovey on arrival at Scapa on the 30th, crucially after this letter was sent. Do you have such a letter?

All the best

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

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3740
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:15 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

I see Sean. Well at least nobody can say that I did not try.

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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3631
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by dunmunro » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:50 pm

Sean, thanks for that letter.

This doesn't have to be a mutual admiration society for us to continue the discussion.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3740
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:59 pm

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

I wrote :
... and someone else to think about it as well.
Duncan, ... thanks for having made clear your position as well.

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
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3740
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:46 pm

Hello everybody,

very differently than Sir Kennedy, ... after having written to Ludovic Kennedy what was his opinion about it Stephen Roskill listed on his book " Churchill and the Admirals " published on 1977 his version of the event and his references/notes.

Here it is from his book on page 125 :
Roskill_Towing_Churchill.jpg
Roskill_Towing_Churchill.jpg (52.14 KiB) Viewed 4405 times
You can read that he is mentioning the message without explaining the timing of it.
Roskill_towing_signal_notes_Churchill.jpg
Roskill_towing_signal_notes_Churchill.jpg (31.94 KiB) Viewed 4405 times
He is listing with the note nr 36 Sir L. Kennedy book and reference page 225 with the related explanation and version, ... but, ....
... he is also referencing with the note nr 37 the original Sir Winston Churchill book nr 3 ( The Grand Alliance ) at page 282, ...where Churchill provided his original version in line with Adm Tovey letters content.

On this he acted very differently than Sir Ludovic Kennedy.

To be noted that Graham Rhys-Jones on page 226 with note 31 is referencing to Roskill page 125 above too.

This is my current personal opinion too.

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: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by wadinga » Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:35 pm

Hello Antonio,

This thread is about the Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

If you were really interested in the truth of this matter, you would address the new evidence I have presented to the forum instead of wrangling on about the minutiae of whether Roskill and Kennedy precisely agreed with each other when your co-author withholds the details of their conversation from study by others.
where Churchill provided his original version in line with Adm Tovey letters content
I have already outlined the temporal chaos of the former PM's writing. It is impossible to say when his perception of his "drafted" message having been transmitted refers to. He certainly makes no mention of the "Shores of France" or even alludes to committing KG V to certain destruction at the hands of U-Boats or Luftwaffe at this heroic location. Unlike Tovey.

However, I believe the new letter makes it crystal clear there never was a "Shores of France" transmission and the only indication of Pound's and the Admiralty's concerns was the 11:37B which Tovey refers to as
and unfortunately I did not appreciate until much later how regrettable an impression you had received.
Please do not suggest Tovey forgot the "Shores of France" on May 30th and only remembered how outraged he was about it ten years later and then kept banging on about it for another 11 years.

Your apparent lack of interest in the new letter almost suggests you have had it all along. Surely not? :think:

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:04 pm

Wadinga wrote (on another thread....): "I notice even you cannot think up a reason to post on the fuel thread why Tovey forgot the "Shores of France" in his letter of the 30th May."
Hi Sean,
I'm sorry to tell you that I'm not much interested in the fuel signals anymore.
I have already proposed you my 2 options about the "shores of France" signal in Tovey's recollection and for me the matter is closed.

Regarding your posted May 30 letter (thanks for it btw :clap: ), Tovey speaks about the towing signal (1137/27) only as this signal was sent when Bismarck was already sunk and he could mention it to the 1st Sea Lord, begging pardon for the "regrettable impression" created by his 1028/27 signal.
The "shores of France" signal (if sent on May 26 according to option 1) or the "Bay of Biscay" weather forecast (in case of option 2) are not mentioned in the letter but in the same letter Tovey does NOT mention even his signal about the intention to give up the chase at midnight is the attack of Ark Royal failed (1821/26).... He generically mentioned only the lack of fuel.....Why should he have mentioned the tough answer of Pound to his 1821/26 in this letter ?
He just started complaining about the interference of the Admiralty much later, when he retired from active service. :wink:


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)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by wadinga » Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:15 pm

Hello Alberto,

I am not surprised you are not much interested in fuel signals any more. :D This letter from Tovey completely undermines your position on this and several other topics.
Why should he have mentioned the tough answer of Pound to his 1821/26 in this letter ?
Because in the letters you summarised he was still banging on about it for eleven years after he contacted Roskill ten years after it happened. In this letter he forgot to mention it to Pound in the letter he wrote four days after it supposedly happened? :shock:

He only writes about the 11:37B because that is all there ever was. If there had been an elephant in the room how could he possibly not mention it? If he was frightened of Pound it doesn't show in this letter. If he was so frightened would he really have threatened to resign on the 30th, or is that just another bit of exaggeration he thought of in the 1950s?

I don't think Roskill ever saw this letter and thus he wasted so much effort trying to find the "Shores of France" signal when this letter clearly shows it never existed. It fits perfectly with my speculation that the drafted but never sent "Shores of France" was mentioned by Pound to Tovey in the famous phone call, which is why Tovey was so enraged by the Stupidest signal only AFTER this letter was written and not before.

Since Tovey's memory in the 1950s was so unreliable, what he says about the CMDS is also unreliable and exaggerated, just as Paffard said to Kennedy. We need to find Pound's letter of the 28th. I'll just keep on looking. Who knows what I will find? :D

All the best

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:00 pm

Wadinga wrote: "I don't think Roskill ever saw this letter and thus he wasted so much effort trying to find the "Shores of France" signal when this letter clearly shows it never existed......"
Hi Sean,
again you don't care making a fool of yourself, posting your senseless speculations, instead of learning how to do historical research from Stephen Roskill ! :lol: :lol: :lol:

A copy of your posted letter is actually included in the Roskill papers, the ones since long time in our hands (the letter was well known to Roskill, of course, and still he "wasted so much effort" to find the "shores of France" message....simply because the letter shows nothing except to you.... :negative: ).

You have been still so lazy not to get, to study and (possibly) to understand these papers, preferring to post desperately your speculations about Roskill historical work and accusing other people to hide information, just to avoid to admit that you have been wrong since the beginning on almost everything discussed on this forum regarding the Bismarck Operation in the last years !
Tovey_May30_signature.jpg
Tovey_May30_signature.jpg (21.21 KiB) Viewed 4223 times
Here above the proof, from Roskill papers :lol: :lol: :lol:


I don't know how you can still post such foolishness on this forum, shamelessly, discrediting your reputation day by day.
Stop please, stop. :stop:


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)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: The KGV and Adm fuel signals on May 26 and 27.

Post by wadinga » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:32 pm

Hello Alberto,
A copy of your posted letter is actually included in the Roskill papers, the ones since long time in our hands
Thank you for revealing you knew about this letter all along, I suspected you were withholding knowledge of it, but had to provoke into admitting it to be sure. And it worked! :D

Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?!!
Jessup: YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!!

It is therefore added to the other material you have redacted from the little Roskill information you have provided. The reason for withholding this information is now made clear. Neither you nor co-author are in the least bit interested in the truth.

You have known all along there was no reference to the "Shores of France" signal in the letter and therefore that signal never existed, but have continued to hide the inaccuracies you are well aware of in Tovey's memories in order to shore up this ludicrous conspiracy theory you are so keen to publish. You have also hidden the conversation between Roskill and Kennedy in which they realised Tovey's shortcomings too. When I go to Cambridge I will know all the things in the Roskill Papers which you have kept secret.

Surely no reputable publisher will handle your speculation.

All the best

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

Post Reply