Hello everybody,
@ Bill Jurens,
I personally thank you to enter on this very long discussion and provide your opinion in general about all this.
I am very curious to have your opinion about just few points we can read on the documents that I am sure you know very well :
1) If I follow your above logic, why according to you Wake-Walker needed to go on the Hood second board with " The Plot " made by Pinchin and change his distance from Hood from 20.000 to 30.000 yards ?
Obviously this had nothing to do with the analysis of the reasons why the Hood exploded ... so, why he did it if his distance from Hood was not so important ?
2) Why Adm Tovey underlined on his dispatches point 17 that Suffolk and Norfolk before the engagement were at around 15 sea miles, ... without providing their real distance at open fire 05:52 and 30 seconds or during the overall engagement.
Point 17 on Adm Tovey dispatches is very misleading the way it has been written, .... why ?
3) Why Adm Tovey on his dispatches point 19 provided a version of the facts that had nothing to do with his first ( correct ) report and Capt Leach official report and told that the PoW Y turret jammed before the turn away of PoW ( false ) and that PoW turned away at 06:13 ( false too ).
Why Adm Tovey needed to write an incorrect story ( corrected Officially by the RN Admiralty by Pitcairn-Jones on 1948 back to 06:03 ) for the PoW disengagement ?
4) Why the Admiralty on September 1941 accepted only ( underlining it in writing signed by Sir J. Barnes ) the Adm Tovey dispatches version ( intentionally incorrect ) of the facts, especially regarding the PoW disengagement. Why ?
5) What is your opinion about the Court Martial trial story for Wake-Walker and Leach written by Adm Tovey to Stephen Roskill, the Official WW2 Royal Navy historian ?
Do you think that Stephen Roskill is wrong, that Sir Henry Leach ( son ) has been wrong about his father and that all the British historians on the last 75 years have been wrong of writing about it ? Do you think Adm Tovey was unreliable ? If so, why ?
6) What about the recent May 31st, 1941 letter between Tovey and Pound responding Pound May 28th, 1941 letter that we do not have yet. Do you think Pound was asking for some scrutiny and consequent military discipline actions to Tovey or proposing a rewarding for Wake-Walker and Leach actions ? Tovey response should be clear enough about it, what is your opinion ?
7) July 19th, 1941 letter from Pound to Tovey should be clear enough too, explaining that if Bismarck was not sunk, some errors made during the shadowing were going to be coming " accutely to the fore ". Do you agree about it or do you think that also in this case Pound was describing an " Admirable " shadowing job done by Wake-Walker and recommanding Tovey to think about the proper rewarding for Wake-Walker ?
In general I am in agreement with you and I have seldom used the definition " incompetent " since I think that the majority of the persons involved were competent, ... with different level of competences, ... depending on where they were and doing what.
Courage in action or cowardice is a different story, but I stop here about it.
Regarding the maps and tracks, I have personally ceased long time ago to use those provided at the time to re-construct where they really were, ... and now I have a very clear scenario and map available that took me 15 years of work to make it.
What one can state with very easy demonstrations I have provided many times, is that those provided at the time are largely incorrect, especially " The Plot " ( Norfolk and Suffolk ), but we know why it was made like that by Pinchin.
Unfortunately the tactical maps of HMS Suffolk and Norfolk has never been made available to be seen, although they were requested and provided to the CS1 Officer.
Lucky us we have their radio messages and their relative bearings including the enemy taken ones.
To declare that no " Cover Up " was made intentionally, you should demonstrate now that Adm Tovey points 17 and 19 on his dispatches are correct and I can hardly see how you can do that, ... and counter the correlation of that action by Tovey and the subsequent Admiralty acceptance being related to the Court martial threat by Adm Pound, ... just as Stephen Roskill declared on his books by referencing the " regrettable aftermath " to the still available documents on the ADM 205/10.
I like to read your opinion on the above points, ... just for my curiosity.
NOTE : I like to wish you and Bill Garzke Jr a very good luck for your coming Bismarck book, I know it will be fantastic !
Bye, Antonio