Well said RF!
To Antonio I'll say, I recall giving you similar counsel way back, buried somewhere in the "Articles" mega-thread. We can all speculate on the motives and intentions behind certain actions - nothing wrong with that, as long as we do it with due sensitivity and the knowledge that we may be completely wrong, or we might have hit the nail on the head. We put forward what we think and let the reader decide based on the merit or lack thereof.....
As for Leach and Wake-Walker, also somewhere in the Articles mega-thread which I cannot spend the time to find, I did an evaluation of their overall conduct in the entire Bismarck operation. Apart from the negatives that have been scrutinized in the several threads related to this topic, there were positives too.
Wake-Walker was in command of BOTH Suffolk and Norfolk, with the later addition of PoW, and so was responsible for all of them. His ships found Bismarck, shadowed her (yes, mainly thanks to Suffolk), and despite the problems, enabled her to be brought to battle by BC1 and damaged, then kept in contact for many hours thereafter out into the open Atlantic, allowing Victorious to attack, before being given the slip. Still with his flagship, WW doggedly pursued Bismarck to be present to take part in her final destruction, his ship virtually steaming on fumes. Whatever his shortcomings, whatever he might have done differently in the DS, he stood fast until the end. His superiors chose to look past the negatives and rewarded him with a CBE. Good for Frederic Wake-Walker!
Leach was cited for "skill in action" among other things. He and his officers whipped his new ship with a defective main armament into shape in short order. He kept perfect station on his flagship up to the point of her demise, keeping perfect GIC/time sector shooting (McMullen) and thanks to his decision to ignore his Admiral's erroneous target order, his new ship scored 3 hits - 2 vital ones - that put paid to the continued execution of Exercise Rhine. He made a split second decision to discontinue the action
very quickly -
too quickly for some of us - right or wrong - he was decisive and in doing so probably saved his ship. He did not know at the time what damage, if any, he had done, but he found out very soon....Bismarck's hemorrhaging of precious oil.
He did his job in protecting the cruisers - re-engaging Bismarck twice. He wisely did not sink the Modoc! His superiors decided to overlook any apparent errors he may have made and look at the overall picture - after all, had it not been for the Prince of Wales, for Leach's "skill" Bismarck would have been unleashed on the convoy lanes, Suffolk may have been sunk. He was rewarded with a DSO. Good for John Catterall Leach!
BUT, I know many here, especially Antonio, Wadinga, will stand united in this regret...Vice-Admiral Lancelot Holland got nothing but criticism and scapegoating (I am not counting "Mentioned in Dispatches" as I feel that was woefully inadequate). He lost his ship, all but 3 of his crew, his life - but he was sent into a battle which his flagship was ill-equipped to withstand. He went in without fear, intent on doing the job. He was forced to make educated guesses during loss of contact with the enemy and was "not so much unskillful" as "unlucky". Yet he still brought the enemy to battle and one of the ships under his command seriously damaged the enemy. Had it not been for Holland's interception, this second ship (PoW) would not have scored those hits. He went down fighting with his flagship - the loss of which was an extremely unlikely event (as calculated by Admiral Santorini, according to Bill Jurens' fine review of his book) - so more sheer bad luck. Lancelot Ernest Holland deserved better....much better!!
That, my friends, conspiracy or no conspiracy, is how I feel about this WHOLE thing...
Paul