PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by HMSVF » Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:13 pm

Bill Jurens wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:33 pm
Trying to restore 'order in the court'...

I assume, in rather broad terms, two proposals are being made, primarily championed by Mssrs. Bonomi and Virtuani.

These are:

a) That Mr. Bonomi's reconstruction of the Denmarck Strait action and associated timings, etc., though not perfect, are at least essentially correct.

and

b) That an interpretation and analysis of that track chart is sufficient to justify the allegation that the British undertook a subsequent 'coverup' to obscure inadequate leadership in the field.


Rather than continue what seems to have now deteriorated into a series of pointless and often offensive posts on either side, with no new evidence being put forward to further clarify the issues at hand I propose the following:

a) That members who wish to do so, post their overall evaluation of the two issues above, as being at this stage being either 'proven', 'indeterminate', or 'not proven'. So, everyone in effect, gets two votes, one on each issue. I would interpret a lack of specific input to represent, for whatever reasons, 'indeterminate'. Those who to conduct a 'secret ballot', for whatever reasons, may write me a private post at bjurens@shaw.ca.

b) That a two-thirds majority of expression on any particular issue be considered to represent a current 'consensus' of the forum.

b) That after this survey has been done -- and provided some consensus has been reached -- we temporarily close Denmark Strait topics. I would suggest a two-week moratorium which would allow participants on both sides to reassess and refine their arguments. At that point, after further discussion, provided there is any, we can attempt to reset the 'consensus' again. In that regard, in order to avoid simply going over old ground again, I would suggest that future commentary be limited to either rather substantive reinterpretations of what has gone on before, or to comments springing either from entirely or substantively new evidence.


So far as recent postings are concerned, Mr. Virtuani seems to be in rather passionate disagreement with virtually everyone on this forum, now apparently including myself and perhaps Mr. Rico as well. He is unhappy, and is clearly making others unhappy as well. My own offense aside -- as the saying goes "I've been called worse by better...", I see three options here: 1) a voluntary withdrawal from the forum, temporary or permanent, 2) a demonstrated commitment to adopt a less-argumentative stance on various issues, or 3) the imposition of a temporary or permanent ban as imposed by the moderators.

I leave that decision, at this point, up to Mr. Virtuani.

Constructive comments, as always, very welcome indeed.

Bill Jurens.
Question 1) Indeterminate.

Question 2) Not proven.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2104
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by wadinga » Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:44 am

Fellow Contributors,

I vote
a) Not proven
b) Not proven

It has been said of another matter:
‘it was over 50 years ago so who the hell cares anyway’
However, we are not here concerned if was a Manor or a Hall class locomotive, whether the coaches were Hawksworth or Collett design or even if it was one or two minutes late :wink:

The very serious allegations made as b) have been recently neatly summarised:
(debatable) honor of (timid) RN officers involved (Leach, Wake-Walker and Ellis) + RN high officers cover-up of what happened (from Tovey false statements in his report to Pound and Churchill final acceptance of an incorrect story) + final decorations for "militarily poor" officers from His Majesty + embellishment of several other aspects, including this very topic (the "story" of the "green" PoW, with a poor gunnery performance).
Additionally many celebrated and respected authors have been accused of deliberately furthering these alleged falsehoods, knowing them to be such and hiding and withholding evidence.

I believe everybody interested enough to read this forum, and certainly those who have contributed posts over the years should care enough about historical accuracy to have an opinion whether these assertions have been proven over the many years they have been so assiduously promoted. They should surely contribute their votes to the Moderator's idea for a survey.
comments springing either from entirely or substantively new evidence
I hope Mr Rico may have some success in locating the missing gunnery report of Prinz Eugen and making it available for all as he has so many other valuable documents. I would hope we can also get better access to other material from the Roskill collection including the Vickers' report and communications with Lt Murphy by Roskill. We can all contribute what we can.

All the best

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

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:04 am

I would still be interested in learning if anyone has actually found and examined the physical film of the Denmark Strait action, or if all analysis has been done via video transfers. If transferring has occurred, what guarantees might we have that accurate timing has been preserved?

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:04 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "The very serious allegations made as b) have been recently neatly summarised:
(debatable) honor of (timid) RN officers involved (Leach, Wake-Walker and Ellis) + RN high officers cover-up of what happened (from Tovey false statements in his report to Pound and Churchill final acceptance of an incorrect story) + final decorations for "militarily poor" officers from His Majesty + embellishment of several other aspects, including this very topic (the "story" of the "green" PoW, with a poor gunnery performance).
Additionally many celebrated and respected authors have been accused of deliberately furthering these alleged falsehoods, knowing them to be such and hiding and withholding evidence. "
A perfect summary, sincere thanks to Mr.Wadinga for posting it here.

All the above have been substantiated in these years one by one by evidences (available in documents at archives) that could not be countered during this time by anybody, except "proposing" a very convenient "fog of war" to make things indeterminate, claiming "innocent" errors in Tovey's despatches (point 17 and 19) and proposing "quibbles" about the difference between a Court Martial and a Board of Inquiry into the Conduct of an officer in front of the enemy,

or, with a further fantasy effort,
inventing/supporting evidently incorrect timings (Bismarck open fire 05:52, PoW cease fire 06:11, etc. etc.), demonstrating a refusal to look at the film and photos for what they show us (courses/timings, shell splashes, etc.), claiming repeated memory failures (Tovey, Ellis, McMullen, Alexander, Churchill, etc.) , imagining unknown "fishermen masts" sailing close to Germans (Busch's Suffolk distance) , speculating on secretary errors (Brockmann in ADM 205/10), considering "just" incautious the BBC interview and BofI signed declarations (Wake-Walker), etc.

+, very recently here in this very thread, making "resistance" to simply accept the aseptic average gunnery figures for PoW and BS.


Regarding the authors, nobody had an interest in wide opening this "can of worms": e.g.only, Grenfell did not mention the "regrettable aftermath", Roskill knew what happened but avoided to emphasize it, Kennedy, knowing it, wrote a fairy tale instead, to celebrate the RN and even the Baron was "diplomatically"avoiding some delicate aspects.
Only G.Rhys-Jones and Adm.Santarini have (for very limited aspects) unveiled the truth, but the whole story has still to be published and it will be in some years.

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)

paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by paul.mercer » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:03 am

Gentlemen,
On reflection, perhaps my using the comment of ‘Who cares anyway’ may have been a bit out of order, but was made in the light of reading the same arguments being put forward time and time again with increasing vitriol from both sides. That said (and apologised for), there is no doubt that the main contributors to this debate have taken a lot of time and trouble to ascertain exactly what happened on the day of the battle and its aftermath.
However, the fact remains that we are debating something that occurred 78 years ago, what was recorded at the time and what was said and recorded by the participants and the historians at a later date. I do believe that we may be getting somewhere close to what actually occurred, but given the time that has elapsed and the fact that after Bismarck and PE turned their guns on PoW and started to hit there must have been a lot of confusion on the Bridge with guns failing to fire and of course the hit on the compass platform which killed and injured many people so accurate recording down to the last second or even minute might not have been possible until some sort of order was restored. We also have reports made about the battle when PoW returned to port, can we be sure that they are absolutely accurate? While not inferring that they were in anyway deliberately falsified, it is often the case that what one person sees or hears another may have a different version, with both convinced that theirs are correct.
I do agree with Wadinga about the charges of timidity or even cowardice against Capt Leach and that PoW ‘ran away’ when she was still battleworthy. What has become evident from the posts in this Forum is that with only around seven weeks workup PoW was never properly prepared for a battle against two ships or even Bismarck on her own, the ship and her mainly novice crew did very well under the circumstances that they found themselves involved, but the fact remains that she was taking a hiding and it would only have taken one unlucky shell to hit her in the engine room to slow her up enough to be pounded to bits and finished off with torpedoes from PE, thus losing the RN two capital ships in one day.
None of us will ever know what it is like to have been on a ship that is being pounded by 8” & 15” shells or have a situation where they are stunned and wounded with many of their officers lying dead or wounded around them and reports of guns failing coming in.
There is no doubt in my mind that in breaking off the engagement, Capt Leach took the only option available to him to save his ship and her crew from disaster and any charge of cowardice is utterly false and an insult to the man and to the RN itself, such a charge can only be made by those who were not there at the time and cannot even imagine what it must have been like.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:15 am

Hi Paul,
I agree with most of your your above considerations. I also said that Leach's decision to disengage was the good one with hindsight.

His decision to break off the engagement with "superficial damages" only, at the very time he took it, was however very different from what was (and still is) expected from a commanding officer when in action.

The very comprehensible reaction of Pound at the War Cabinet:

Pound_War_Cabinet_53_May_26_Annexes_cropped.jpg
Pound_War_Cabinet_53_May_26_Annexes_cropped.jpg (7.06 KiB) Viewed 591 times

and the one from Churchill hearing the same news at Chequers:

Colville_Gilberts_Finest_Hour.jpg
Colville_Gilberts_Finest_Hour.jpg (54.39 KiB) Viewed 589 times

was very different, forcing to "embellish" the story in order to present a different situation (that would have given to the captain of PoW no other choice than withdrawing).


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)

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by HMSVF » Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:35 pm

Mucked up post Sorry!
Last edited by HMSVF on Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by HMSVF » Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:39 pm

HMSVF wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:35 pm
Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:15 am
Hi Paul,
I agree with most of your your above considerations. I also said that Leach's decision to disengage was the good one with hindsight.

His decision to break off the engagement with "superficial damages" only, at the very time he took it, was however very different from what was (and still is) expected from a commanding officer when in action.

The very comprehensible reaction of Pound at the War Cabinet:


Pound_War_Cabinet_53_May_26_Annexes_cropped.jpg


and the one from Churchill hearing the same news at Chequers:


Colville_Gilberts_Finest_Hour.jpg


was very different, forcing to "embellish" the story in order to present a different situation (that would have given to the captain of PoW no other choice than withdrawing).


Bye, Alberto

Afternoon to all.

I also said that Leach's decision to disengage was the good one with hindsight.

I find this an unusual use of the word "hindsight" but it might just be me...


Leach made the right decision full stop.

If he had gone on "Sheer" style death ride and got disabled or sunk people would be saying in "hindsight" he made the wrong decision as the RN battleship or squadron in the Atlantic. There were many and all of them were either looking or aware of the German squadron.

If you set off on a journey, come to a fork in the road take one and get to your destination do you say "in hindsight I made the right decision"? No, you made the right decision and made your destination.

Pounds communique has to be put in context. He wasn't on the spot, he was in the Admiralty. It was a fluid situation where the chess pieces had still to be played, more to the point Tovey was the man who had make the key moves. Pound had to await the results hence the tone in the communique.


In regards to Churchill and his "Troubridge" comment - its worth remembering that the 2 events are not comparable. In the first instance there was nothing between Goeben and the Dardanelles (thanks to some truly god awful communication between the French and British + the fact that the orders were confused as some of the combatants were not even technically at war during the first part of the fiasco). The Admiralty didn't really know what the Goebens plans were, they hedged their bets on an escape to the west or possibly Austro Hungary. Troubridge was also outgunned, slower and out armoured - there was zero guarantee that he could slow or even damage the Goeben. And its a bit rich Churchill claiming foul as, along with Battenberg he was responsible for backseat driving and innumerable signals of dubious quality that made a bad situation worse. And again Churchill wasn't on the spot, didn't know the situation, wasn't a professional, just a professional meddler.
His decision to break off the engagement with "superficial damages" only, at the very time he took it, was however very different from what was (and still is) expected from a commanding officer when in action

Roll onto December 1941 and you see exactly why discretion is the better part of valour sometimes. Admiral Phillips put himself and Force Z in harms way in an operation that was highly dangerous and unlikely to bring anything but their destruction (and surprise, surprise Churchill was behind Plan Z).

Low and behold both HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse lie at the bottom of the South China Sea having achieved nothing. No glory, no valour,just 2 capital ships lost,which Britain could ill afford to lose,in a theatre of war where every little helped.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:54 pm

Hello everybody,

I have already said that the judgement over Leach, Wake-Walker and Ellis as soldiers is largely subjective, and we should here concentrate on facts and evidences instead. However:
HMSVF wrote: "Leach made the right decision full stop. "
I would not be so categorical. Had he insisted in the engagement, PoW could have been possibly severely damaged (not blown up), but I doubt that Germans would have stopped to sink her as she was not their objective. PoW could have inflicted serious damages to Bismarck in return. We will never know, it's just hypothetical
What's sure is that at 06:01, without having any certitude he had damaged his enemy, and with a battleship still able to fight, Leach decided to withdraw from the engagement: had Bismarck been able to sink a convoy on May 25, with heavy losses, would you still have called his decision "right" ?

HMSVF wrote: "Pound had to await the results hence the tone in the communique"
I agree, however these "results" had to be embellished (e.g. Tovey point 19 in despaches should be read in the "right context") to avoid the need to have to seriously "evaluate" Leach's decision, as initially requested.

HMSVF wrote: "...there was nothing between Goeben and the Dardanelles..."
as well as there was nothing between Bismarck and the Atlantic convoys escorted by slow WWI battleships or even without any heavy escort. Tovey was too distant to prevent Bismarck to reach her preys.
It was only after the DS battle that the Admiralty (Phillips) took the real lead of the operation, reinforcing the HF and it was Phillips' decision to provide Ark Royal swordfishes to cripple Bismarck.


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)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Byron Angel » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:23 pm

Re the forum vote -
(a) Track chart reconstruction - Abstain.
(b) The "Cover-up" argument - Unproven.

B

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by pgollin » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:03 pm

.

Re the "vote" ;

A: Unverifiable. The information from the time is too little and too inaccurate to produce something as accurate as is being claimed. NO NAVAL OFFICER OF THE TIME would have ever suggested any such thing was possible, they would produce the best that they could KNOWING that it was an approximation. This seems to be someone from the digital age trying to impose modern data gathering on a confused battle situation.

B: The "cover-up" idea is merely a [adjective redacted by moderator Jurens] conspiracy theory, based on biased readings and a lack of knowledge. The language chosen is seemingly deliberately antagonistic.

----

I would note that there seems to be only about 12 to 20 people who actually write on this thread (and hence MIGHT be thought to have preconceived ideas). From the "views" numbers, there would seem to be many more who just read and keep their council - maybe we should encourage them to "vote".

.

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by HMSVF » Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:13 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:54 pm
Hello everybody,

I have already said that the judgement over Leach, Wake-Walker and Ellis as soldiers is largely subjective, and we should here concentrate on facts and evidences instead. However:
HMSVF wrote: "Leach made the right decision full stop. "
I would not be so categorical. Had he insisted in the engagement, PoW could have been possibly severely damaged (not blown up), but I doubt that Germans would have stopped to sink her as she was not their objective. PoW could have inflicted serious damages to Bismarck in return. We will never know, it's just hypothetical
What's sure is that at 06:01, without having any certitude he had damaged his enemy, and with a battleship still able to fight, Leach decided to withdraw from the engagement: had Bismarck been able to sink a convoy on May 25, with heavy losses, would you still have called his decision "right" ?

HMSVF wrote: "Pound had to await the results hence the tone in the communique"
I agree, however these "results" had to be embellished (e.g. Tovey point 19 in despaches should be read in the "right context") to avoid the need to have to seriously "evaluate" Leach's decision, as initially requested.

HMSVF wrote: "...there was nothing between Goeben and the Dardanelles..."
as well as there was nothing between Bismarck and the Atlantic convoys escorted by slow WWI battleships or even without any heavy escort. Tovey was too distant to prevent Bismarck to reach her preys.
It was only after the DS battle that the Admiralty (Phillips) took the real lead of the operation, reinforcing the HF and it was Phillips' decision to provide Ark Royal swordfishes to cripple Bismarck.


Bye, Alberto

Good Afternoon everybody,

What's sure is that at 06:01, without having any certitude he had damaged his enemy, and with a battleship still able to fight, Leach decided to withdraw from the engagement: had Bismarck been able to sink a convoy on May 25, with heavy losses, would you still have called his decision "right"
The thing is though that Bismarck was damaged and effectively his part in it was over, hence releasing Prinz Eugen. If we change the variables you could get all sorts of different outcomes. As it stood I believe that the RN knew that she was leaking oil and that she was slightly slow than prior. I would tentatively argue that had Bismarck blundered into an escorted convey she wouldn't have hung around to smash up a convoy, she was effectively slowly bleeding to death. She had a finite amount of oil in which to make home, even a ship as phenomenal as Bismarck would have taken time to sink an entire convoy - if escorted I think that Lutjens would have skirted around them. A "Revenge" capable of 18 knots tops isn't going to be in a position to force the issue.

Now, if we are going to say just for an alternative scenario she wasn't damaged she still has to a) avoid the Home Fleet, b) find a convoy(which are now well aware of her presence in the Atlantic) and c) dispose of them as quickly as possible and without damage. IMHO this is the flaw with using a battleship in such a operation - she is just too expensive unit to lose and the world had moved on in terms of telecommunication since Von Muller and the Emden. As you point out there were still some WW1 veterans out there ,completely outclassed, but would still take up valuable time and ammunition to subdue before they could take on the convoy. There was also Force H. Now Somerville would have known that Renown was in no way a match for Bismarck but he still had a trump card in Ark Royal, which unlike Victorious was properly equipped and had an experienced crew.

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that it wasn't a full blown conclusion that Bismarck would have wiped the Atlantic clean. In Leach's case and defence he had tagged the Bismarck and (till codeword Hood) relayed back where she was. That the Home Fleet lost Bismarck I'd argue was more of Tovey's problem than Leach's. But I accept that is a personal opinion. :D



Best wishes to all.


Ooh PS in regards to Goeben - there was literally nothing stopping her transit East,not a sausage. Milne,Churchill,Battenberg all bet the house on Goeben escaping westward through Gibraltar (which shows a lack of imagination !). Hence the cupboard was bare.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3966
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by dunmunro » Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:01 pm

Bill Jurens wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 5:33 pm
Trying to restore 'order in the court'...

I assume, in rather broad terms, two proposals are being made, primarily championed by Mssrs. Bonomi and Virtuani.

These are:

a) That Mr. Bonomi's reconstruction of the Denmarck Strait action and associated timings, etc., though not perfect, are at least essentially correct.

and

b) That an interpretation and analysis of that track chart is sufficient to justify the allegation that the British undertook a subsequent 'coverup' to obscure inadequate leadership in the field.


Rather than continue what seems to have now deteriorated into a series of pointless and often offensive posts on either side, with no new evidence being put forward to further clarify the issues at hand I propose the following:

a) That members who wish to do so, post their overall evaluation of the two issues above, as being at this stage being either 'proven', 'indeterminate', or 'not proven'. So, everyone in effect, gets two votes, one on each issue. I would interpret a lack of specific input to represent, for whatever reasons, 'indeterminate'. Those who to conduct a 'secret ballot', for whatever reasons, may write me a private post at bjurens@shaw.ca.

b) That a two-thirds majority of expression on any particular issue be considered to represent a current 'consensus' of the forum.

b) That after this survey has been done -- and provided some consensus has been reached -- we temporarily close Denmark Strait topics. I would suggest a two-week moratorium which would allow participants on both sides to reassess and refine their arguments. At that point, after further discussion, provided there is any, we can attempt to reset the 'consensus' again. In that regard, in order to avoid simply going over old ground again, I would suggest that future commentary be limited to either rather substantive reinterpretations of what has gone on before, or to comments springing either from entirely or substantively new evidence.


So far as recent postings are concerned, Mr. Virtuani seems to be in rather passionate disagreement with virtually everyone on this forum, now apparently including myself and perhaps Mr. Rico as well. He is unhappy, and is clearly making others unhappy as well. My own offense aside -- as the saying goes "I've been called worse by better...", I see three options here: 1) a voluntary withdrawal from the forum, temporary or permanent, 2) a demonstrated commitment to adopt a less-argumentative stance on various issues, or 3) the imposition of a temporary or permanent ban as imposed by the moderators.

I leave that decision, at this point, up to Mr. Virtuani.

Constructive comments, as always, very welcome indeed.

Bill Jurens.
a) Not correct - it was created by ignoring key aspects of the historical record and it fails the acid test of accuracy by placing Suffolk and Norfolk within visual range of one another long before that actually happened.

b) not proven. There is no evidence of a cover-up at all - none. Their basis for [redacted by moderator Jurens] is the ramblings of old men, being substituted for real historical research, [redacted by moderator Jurens]

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:45 pm

Hello everybody,

I still hear very loud "noise" here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&p=82710#p82709) and mostly here (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=390#p82707)
but instead of reacting as fully deserved :
Bill Jurens had written ((viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=360#p82673)): "it would be better if one detects what they feel to be an intentional provocation, that instead of replying immediately in anger directly to the perceived aggressor, they simply put the question to myself"
I patiently wait for the moderator judgement...



HMSVF wrote: "As it stood I believe that the RN knew that she was leaking oil and that she was slightly slow than prior"
Sure, immediately after the battle the oil leak was detected.
However, here we speak of battle time 06:01 AM, when Captain Leach had no clue whether Bismarck had been hit or not and he took the decision to withdraw with a battleship still able to fight (and to inflict damages to a dangerous enemy it was his duty to stop), due to a shell passing through his bridge (IMHO) or due to his feeling that he was not able to stop her anymore without Hood (his report explanation).

Again, the evaluation of this decision is a largely subjective matter: I have even said that a Court Martial would probably not have condemned Leach (as it did not condemn Troubridge), but IMO his behavior was far from being optimal (to use kind words), from a military viewpoint.


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)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW's gunnery VS BSM's gunnery

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:58 pm

In deference to Mr. Virtuani's comment, have made minor modifications to some previous postings. Please note that I can only delete what I feel to be inappropriate commentary, I cannot 'strike it through', so the commentary disappears completely. Sometimes I would rather retain it to serve as an example of what is being changed, but I cannot, as yet, actually do that.

It would be nice to hear from a somewhat wider selection of readers regarding their overall evaluations of the hypotheses presented my Mssrs. Bonomi and Virtuani. It is my assumption that their votes would be 'proven' and 'proven', but that's technically just speculation right now.

Bill Jurens.

Locked