HMS Barham

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

the British Admiralty has already admitted what was written by Adm Tovey : an INCORRECT statement !

So you can call it the way you like it better, ... I call it an intentional " cover up " on 1941.

In any case it has been a real shame ... no matter what.

Bye Antonio

Antonio, the times written in a classified (Until war's end) summary like Tovey's despatch doesn't constitute a coverup. It wasn't published till after the war, and even the RN's Battle Summary #5 was classified as well for many years after it was published. The only people who needed to know what happened at Denmark Straits, and were in a position to judge Tovey and his subordinates, already had access to all the written reports from the ships and officers involved and the from prisoner's statements, additionally they could also send written queries to anyone at any time - so Tovey's despatch is completely irrelevant from the Admiralty's and from the UK War Cabinet's point of view. Tovey didn't cover anything up, because he wasn't in a position to do that. Only Churchill could have ordered a cover-up and he didn't.

"...an INCORRECT statement !..." is just that...not a cover-up.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

Duncan, ... I call it an intentional " cover up " ... you call it and " incorrect " statement.

Despite our different terminology used, ... the facts are that instead of a well deserved inquiry driving probably a court martial ... it enabled a sure NOT deserved medal recognition.

One can tolerate a missing punishment for a non proper battle conduct ... but I think it was shameful to give them medals, ... while putting on somebody else shoulders the whole responsibilities of what happened, ... on somebody died courageously and with honor, ... according to the Royal Navy best battle conduct traditions.

Just my personal opinion, ... being myself an Officer.

Now I take a break and I go on the sea side for a well deserved vacation ... take care ...

Bye Antonio

[paul.mercer]

I doubt the Germans were using magnetic exploders - they were too unreliable at that time I think. Besides the water columns were observed on Barham's port side and the ship heeled rapidly to port suggesting contact-type detonation on the side of the hull. The bulges obviously did not protect her from flooding quickly and rolling over.

I read that an Enquiry into the sinking concluded that it was extra 4-inch AA ammunition stored in passages around the 15-inch magazines that went off first, setting off the latter. What made it explode is the question - whether a fire or fiery splinters from the 2 aft torpedo hits caused ignition or it was spontaneous because of the ship rolling over. I would think the former since the extra 4-inch ammo (which was stored there because it had been found that the proper magazine stowage was inadequate) would very likely not had any splinter protection. (Sort of a parallel to Hood - in that it is believed her 4-inch magazines set of the 15-inch)

However, the magazine explosion only hastened the inevitable and killed many potential survivors - the Barham was obviously a goner having capsized....

Paul

Gentlemen,
To get back to the sinking of HMS Barham, why would the 4" ammunition be set off by the action of the ship rolling over?