PoW readiness for active service

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 06, 2019 1:32 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 7:37 am
Hello everybody,



We've already discussed all this in different threads and I won't refute it line by line here. But again, we know a lot about KGV's output and salvos fired at various points in the battle because this is detailed in the GAR whereas we know nothing about Bismarck's output save that the numbers of rounds fired is not an even number. How you can possibly equate the two is beyond me and you even state:

"...RoF for KGV was just 1.7 salvos per minute during 20 minutes..." or 34 salvos from 0853 to 0913 as per her GAR. The salvo rate was lower before 0853 and after 0913. At 0920 after firing an average of 23 rnds/gun A turret jammed, so we know that at 0920 KGV had fired at least 45-47 1/2 salvos and 92 rounds from A turret. We can assume a similar number per gun from B turret and output from Y turret from 0900 onward or 22 x 1/2 salvos for 13 minutes (11 rnds/gun from 0900-0913) or probably ~16 rnds/gun by 0920, so this gives us ~138 rnds from forward turrets and ~64 from Y turret at 0920 or about 200 rnds fired, looking at the individual gun casualties there just isn't any indication of a serious loss of output prior to 0920 and indeed the GAR states that things went "...extremely well..." until 0920.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by alecsandros » Mon May 06, 2019 4:13 am

@Duncan
you have drawn an excel of KGV's GAR. Your excel has the first 18 salvos between 8:48 and 9:00 (12 minutes). That is an average of 1,50 salvos per minute, compared to PoW's 1,9 salvos per minute.
Last edited by alecsandros on Mon May 06, 2019 5:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by alecsandros » Mon May 06, 2019 4:18 am

@Bill Jurens, Byron Angel

The allegations of Court Martial, and Tovey's threat of resignation, are contained in some other books as well. Not many from what I recall, but existent nonetheless.

Scanned exerpts , with quotes, from those books, have been submitted by Mr Antonio and Mr Alberto along the years, here on the Kbismarck forum.

I'll try digging some up today or tomorrow, after I'll get back home.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by alecsandros » Mon May 06, 2019 5:19 am

As for the timings (6:03 vs 6:13, etc), various British documents have been submitted to the forum along the years, showing that correct appreciation of the times existed in contemporary documents. The 'typo' '6:13' apparently first appeared in Tovey's letter, from which it had been copied into subsequent Admiralty documents. I can't pronounce myself over the intentionality of the typo, but Mr Antonio and Mr Alberto made a convincing case that the error may have been intentional.

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by Bill Jurens » Mon May 06, 2019 5:48 am

The allegations of court martial threats, etc. are well known in the secondary literature and have been mentioned in a number of places. There is no need to repeat them here as no one doubts their existence or their phrasing. What I am looking for is some prior expression that these were intentionally redacted not because further examination showed them to be inappropriate, but because they did not support part of an organised cover up scheme.

Bill Jurens

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by alecsandros » Mon May 06, 2019 6:20 am

Yes, I think there are instances in some books that mention the threats were toned down/ultimately eliminated , after Tovey's strong intervention , and after the consummation of the Bismarck episode. Now that I'm trying to remember more, I seem to remember actual primary documents (letters ?) being posted by Antonio some time ago, including paragraphs about a Board of Inquiry of some sort, in the immediate aftermath of Hood's demise. However, after the finalisation of the pursuit, such requests were simply not followed anymore.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by Herr Nilsson » Mon May 06, 2019 6:48 am

alecsandros wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 5:19 am
As for the timings (6:03 vs 6:13, etc), various British documents have been submitted to the forum along the years, showing that correct appreciation of the times existed in contemporary documents. The 'typo' '6:13' apparently first appeared in Tovey's letter, from which it had been copied into subsequent Admiralty documents. I can't pronounce myself over the intentionality of the typo, but Mr Antonio and Mr Alberto made a convincing case that the error may have been intentional.
The typo appeared first in CS1's despatch. There is at least another typo in this despatch ....to the worst disadvantage of Wake-Walker. Furthermore it's absolutely illogical to provide the admiralty with plans, which show the track of PoW, if someone wants to cover up the time of turning away.
Regards

Marc

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

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3438
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon May 06, 2019 7:34 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "Where exactly, are the falsifications to which you allude"
I have already listed them but it is enough to read the two reports (May 30 (download/file.php?id=3508) and Despatches(download/file.php?id=3507)) to see that intentionally embellishments were added to justify Leach.

1) 6:00 (Hood blows up) + 2 minutes = 6:02, as per May 30 report: however in the despatches it becomes... 6:13..?
2) no mention in May 30 report of the Y turret jamming: it becomes the main battle damage (and Leach justification) in the despatches...?
3) 2 HALA directors out of action on May 30 become...3 of them in the despatches..?

There is no way to say that a sane person like Tovey, having written a (more or less) correct report on May 30 and after having received explicit menaces of a serious disciplinary action (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=78971&hilit= ... +CM#p78971) against Leach on the same date, can write point 19 in the way he did without "intentional" falsification purpose.
Please don't speak of minor differences, they are all in the direction to incorrectly justify Leach decision, supporting the false idea that PoW could not continue the engagement (especially turret Y jam that is the heavyweight to say that Leach had no choice) and to provide a better story (6:13, 13 minutes alone fighting against Bismarck). What is needed more to prove the intentional alteration of facts for a clear purpose ? I guess we will never find the "confession" of Tovey...




A small (almost comical) remark to another attempt to justify Tovey's "innocent errors": 6:13 was present in and was "taken" from CS1 report: however this report is contradictory and contains two different "timings" (6:13 in one place but where it is written (one page later) that PoW retired "after 10 minutes engagement" : 5:53 +10 =... 6:03...)

WW_report.jpg
WW_report.jpg (6.84 KiB) Viewed 345 times

As we already know quite well, Wake-Walker was such a "smart" officer (!) to be able to say one thing one day and then another thing another day, as he did at the two Hood boards (NF distance to Hood) and in his interview to BBC (smoke identification at 05:16)....but here we are in front of a masterpiece: on the same report he was able to write two contradictory statements...
Luckily for the truth, the guy was the way he was...


A competent person like Tovey, receiving W-W report with 6:13 and "6:03"... lightly picked up the 6:13 timing, being very good to justify Leach and even having been written by...someone else... (very conveniently, to avoid problems for himself in writing such an enormity), when he had already in his hands the PoW maps and salvo plot, showing a very different (much worse for Leach) reality pointing to 6:01:30 max (confirming his initial evaluation of 6:02, done already on May 30)...


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)

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 06, 2019 6:25 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 7:34 am
Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "Where exactly, are the falsifications to which you allude"
I have already listed them but it is enough to read the two reports (May 30 (download/file.php?id=3508) and Despatches(download/file.php?id=3507)) to see that intentionally embellishments were added to justify Leach.

1) 6:00 (Hood blows up) + 2 minutes = 6:02, as per May 30 report: however in the despatches it becomes... 6:13..?
2) no mention in May 30 report of the Y turret jamming: it becomes the main battle damage (and Leach justification) in the despatches...?
3) 2 HALA directors out of action on May 30 become...3 of them in the despatches..?
1) The ceasefire times from the various reports and logs average to 0613.

3) Both Forward HADTs were knocked out by the hit forward and the 38cm hit to the funnel knocked out the after starboard HADT via splinters.


The same people who could read Tovey's despatch could also read the various individual reports upon which it was written, since it was a highly classified document that was only published post war.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 1864
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by wadinga » Mon May 06, 2019 6:52 pm

Fellow Contributors,
Yes, I think there are instances in some books that mention the threats were toned down/ultimately eliminated , after Tovey's strong intervention
These all originate only from Tovey's late life recollection to Roskill, which lay unpublished by him and perhaps dismissed by him until Kennedy published them much later with a massive disclaimer. There is no other independent source.
I seem to remember actual primary documents (letters ?) being posted by Antonio some time ago,
Actually the 1941 Tovey hand-written letter found and supplied here www.kbismarck.org/forum/search.php?st=0 ... 1&start=75
by me on May 25th 2018, says the C-in-C will not have a Board of Inquiry under any circumstances and he will not even advise the victims of the potential threat because it isn't going to happen. No Court Martial for them is ever mentioned. In the same post I challenged those making the accusations
If you are still withholding information, eg silver bullets or any corroboration whatsoever of Tovey's myth from any other source other than Tovey, what about showing it?
and in nearly a year they have shown nothing.

Otherwise the same flashing lights and colourful lures being trolled through the water as we have seen for years, turned from simple irrelevant discrepancies into sinister falsifications by the power of pre-conditioned intuition and an overwhelming desire to realise the "Main Chance".

All the best

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

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by alecsandros » Mon May 06, 2019 7:07 pm

wadinga wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:52 pm
by me on May 25th 2018, says the C-in-C will not have a Board of Inquiry under any circumstances and he will not even advise the victims of the potential threat because it isn't going to happen. No Court Martial for them is ever mentioned. In the same post I challenged those making the accusations
wadinga
If someone writes "I will not submit any B of I or C M [...] concerning Wake-Walker", it means somebody else requested it ...

This is what Alberto and Antonio have replied to you in the link that you posted above... And they are naturally right.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 06, 2019 7:23 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 7:07 pm
wadinga wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:52 pm
by me on May 25th 2018, says the C-in-C will not have a Board of Inquiry under any circumstances and he will not even advise the victims of the potential threat because it isn't going to happen. No Court Martial for them is ever mentioned. In the same post I challenged those making the accusations
wadinga
If someone writes "I will not submit any B of I or C M [...] concerning Wake-Walker", it means somebody else requested it ...

This is what Alberto and Antonio have replied to you in the link that you posted above... And they are naturally right.
No one mentioned a CM.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4344
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by alecsandros » Mon May 06, 2019 7:40 pm

dunmunro wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 7:23 pm
No one mentioned a CM.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=78298&hilit=31st+May#p78298

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by dunmunro » Mon May 06, 2019 8:21 pm

alecsandros wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 7:40 pm
dunmunro wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 7:23 pm
No one mentioned a CM.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=78298&hilit=31st+May#p78298
That was Tovey speaking rhetorically. There was no mention of a CM threat against Leach or W-W.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3438
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: PoW readiness for active service

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon May 06, 2019 8:54 pm

Hello everybody,

now, after "typos", "innocent errors" and "ceasefire" time just confused with "break off" time, it's Tovey speaking "rhetorically" to his superior.... Fantasy at the nth degree.
No sane officer lightly speaks about a Court Martial if the CM is not explicitly or implicitly mentioned by his superior (and anyway the CM is
mentioned by Tovey in his 1961 letter to Roskill, inconvenient as it may be for the ones who believe in fairy-tales).
Does anyone (with a minimum knowledge of military procedures) still think that a "Board of Inquiry into the conduct" of an officer is not the clear antechamber of a Court Martial ?

Dunmunro wrote: " Both Forward HADTs were knocked out by the hit forward and the 38cm hit to the funnel knocked out the after starboard HADT via splinters."
No, one was knocked out, the other just temporarily jammed (no damage whatsoever was found subsequently and this is stated in the official damage report) while the aft directors were perfectly functioning, just a earphone was cut by a splinter and crew affected by splinters and smoke. No damage to any apparatus.


Anyway, the key point is that:
it is enough to read the two reports (May 30 (download/file.php?id=3508) and Despatches(download/file.php?id=3507)) to see that intentionally embellishments were added to justify Leach.
(the "errors" in the despatches) are all in the direction to incorrectly justify Leach decision, supporting the false idea that PoW could not continue the engagement (especially turret Y jam that is the heavyweight to say that Leach had no choice) and to provide a better story (6:13, 13 minutes alone fighting against Bismarck). What is needed more to prove the intentional alteration of facts for a clear purpose ? I guess we will never find the "confession" of Tovey...
How can Tovey add the Y turret jam to the battle damages that "forced" Leach to retreat if not intentionally. In Leach report this is described very clearly as a consequence of the turn away.
How can a logic person like Tovey write 6:13, having in front of him the PoW maps/salvo plot ? Oh, yes, the very convenient "typos"...


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)

Locked