HMS Barham

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
As you know there have been expeditions to find Bismarck, Hood, Scharhorst, Ark Royal and many other wartime wrecks, does anyone know if they have ever tried to find the remains of HMS Barham sunk by a sub in the Med?

[frontkampfer]

Good question!

[paulcadogan]

The HMS Barham Association has a very good up-to-date website and there's no mention of any exploration of the wreck there, so I don't think so.

http://www.hmsbarham.com/index.php

[paul.mercer]

Gentlemen,
Thanks for your replies.
One thing that has always puzzled me about the sinking, I'm sure most of us have seen the horrific pictures of Barham exploding, the question is why? The QE class had quite pronouced anti torpedo bulges, and many other warships have been torpedoed without such disasterous effects, even QE and Valient only sank onto the bottom in the harbour after the Italian chariot attack. I wonder if it was one of the German magnetic torpedoes that were designed to go off under the ship that caused the damage? The pictures of her sinking show an increasing list after she was hit with the explosion coming some time after.
Any ideas?

[paulcadogan]

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

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

I think this film is very useful to realize several things about a battleship magazine explosion ... and her smoke after.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdrISbwy_zI

And here a very good link for HMS Barham :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Barham_(04)

In particular I highlight :

Aftermath

The Admiralty was immediately notified of the sinking.
It was not until the Admiralty's admission on 27 January 1942 that Barham had been sunk and described the circumstances that Tiesenhausen knew that he had sunk her.
He was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross that day.

In an effort to conceal the sinking from the Germans and to protect British morale, the Admiralty censored all news of Barham's destruction.
After a delay of several weeks the War Office notified next of kin, but they added a special request for secrecy : the notification letters included a warning not to discuss the loss of the ship with anyone but close relatives, stating it was "most essential that information of the event which led to the loss of your husband's life should not find its way to the enemy until such time as it is announced officially...".

By late January 1942, the German High Command had realized Barham had been lost.
The Admiralty informed the press on 27 January 1942 and explained the rationale for withholding the news.

A Royal Navy Court of Enquiry into the sinking ascribed the final magazine explosion to the detonation en masse of 4-inch anti-aircraft ammunition stored in wing passages adjacent to the main magazines, which would have detonated the contents of the main magazines. Experience of prolonged air attacks in earlier operations had shown that the stowage capacity of the AA magazines was inadequate, hence extra ammunition was shipped in any convenient void spaces.

and

Film of the sinking

The sinking was captured on film.
In consideration of public morale and in order to protect the families who had lost loved ones, the Admiralty decided to keep the film secret until the end of hostilities in 1945.

Food for thoughts ...

Bye Antonio

[Steve Crandell]

Yes, the US military did that as well. It was common in the case of the loss of a major ship.

[northcape]

Food for thoughts ...

What exactly do you mean? I would suggest it is quite common practice to hide as much information from the enemy as possible in war times. Reasons being not providing the enemy with any kind of technical information which could give him tactical or strategic advantage. For example, after the Hood disaster the DNC, S.V.Godall, wrote:

"..This statement gives the bold facts. If presented to the public as it stands it will be perturbing and although some people may then realize the load of anxiety which has rested upon successive Boards of Admiralty owing to our capital ships being out of date, it appears such a statement would depress our friends and hearten the enemy, giving the latter information which it is hoped they do not at present possess, e.g. we have been bluffing them with the Royal Sovereigns for nearly two years. It is for consideration to what extent this statement should be modified on ground of policy if some publication is essential."

In other words, why would one expect any state in war to tell the truth about incidents with possible strategic and tactical implications?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Steve Crandell and Northcape,

thanks for the confirmations.

That is exactly what I meant, ... so why are many persons surprised about the " cover up " on Denmark Strait occurrences ?

It has been done for the same reasons, ... following the same processes ... by the same persons in charge of doing those things in war time ...

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Steve Crandell and Northcape,

thanks for the confirmations.

That is exactly what I meant, ... so why are many persons surprised about the " cover up " on Denmark Strait occurrences ?

It has been done for the same reasons, ... following the same processes ... by the same persons in charge of doing those things in war time ...

Bye Antonio

What cover up?

The ships involved all produced written reports, which you have now, and there was an extensive series of inquiries into Hood's loss.

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

in fact having read them carefully ... and I love the 20.000 to 30.000 yards using " The Plot " ... and 06.13 ... I confirm the " cover up " ...

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

in fact having read them carefully ... and I love the 20.000 to 30.000 yards using " The Plot " ... and 06.13 ... I confirm the " cover up " ...

Bye Antonio

Antonio, probable errors of fact or interpretation in a report do not constitute "a cover up" as long as those errors were arrived at honestly based on information that was known at the time. History is filled with stories that were believed true at the time, but have been proven false by historians carefully sifting through all the evidence. Tovey stating an incorrect time in his account of the battle doesn't constitute a coverup, as long as he didn't also destroy any contrary evidence that can disprove his account - and he didn't. At worst you can accuse Tovey of making a mistake.

Do you consider your own previous history of this battle to be a "cover up" ?

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

Duncan, I understand you like Sean try to defend those Officers in any way you can ... despite any evidence.

A " cover up " is writing something different than the reality you know since has been reported to you.

Here Adm Tovey cover up :

19. The Prince of Wales started off well for so new and unpracticed a ship and had straddled with her sixth salvo. She had been engaging the Bismarck, while herself being engaged by the Prinz Eugen. After emptying her aircraft in preparation for a night encounter, she had been unable to refuel it in time to fly off before contact was made. It was just about to be catapulted when it was hit by splinters and had to be jettisoned. As soon as the Hood had been disposed of, the Bismarck shifted her main and secondary armament fire quickly and accurately on to the Prince of Wales.

The range was now about 18,000 yards and the Prince of Wales' starboard 5.25 inch battery had also come into action.
Within a very few minutes she was hit by four 15-in, and three smaller, probably 8-in. shells; her compass platform was damaged and most of the people on it killed or wounded; both forward H.A. Directors and the starboard after one were out of action; one four-gunned turret had jammed and the ship was holed underwater aft.

The Rear-Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron, reports that the Prince of Wales' salvoes were now falling short and had a very large spread.
The Commanding Officer considered it expedient temporarily to break off the action and, at 0613, turned away under smoke.
The range on ceasing fire was 14,600 yards.

Now you read the events sequence, the timing and tell me if it does correspond to the reports and radio messages Adm Tovey had on his hands BEFORE writing this event report.

No typo, no errors done by radio operators possible here ... just INCORRECT intentional statements ... well thought and written in sequence.

A " cover up " ...

Bye Antonio

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

@ Dunmunro,

Duncan, I understand you like Sean try to defend those Officers in any way you can ... despite any evidence.

A " cover up " is writing something different than the reality you know since has been reported to you.

Here Adm Tovey cover up :

19. The Prince of Wales started off well for so new and unpracticed a ship and had straddled with her sixth salvo. She had been engaging the Bismarck, while herself being engaged by the Prinz Eugen. After emptying her aircraft in preparation for a night encounter, she had been unable to refuel it in time to fly off before contact was made. It was just about to be catapulted when it was hit by splinters and had to be jettisoned. As soon as the Hood had been disposed of, the Bismarck shifted her main and secondary armament fire quickly and accurately on to the Prince of Wales.

The range was now about 18,000 yards and the Prince of Wales' starboard 5.25 inch battery had also come into action.
Within a very few minutes she was hit by four 15-in, and three smaller, probably 8-in. shells; her compass platform was damaged and most of the people on it killed or wounded; both forward H.A. Directors and the starboard after one were out of action; one four-gunned turret had jammed and the ship was holed underwater aft.

The Rear-Admiral Commanding, First Cruiser Squadron, reports that the Prince of Wales' salvoes were now falling short and had a very large spread.
The Commanding Officer considered it expedient temporarily to break off the action and, at 0613, turned away under smoke.
The range on ceasing fire was 14,600 yards.

Now you read the events sequence, the timing and tell me if it does correspond to the reports and radio messages Adm Tovey had on his hands BEFORE writing this event report.

No typo, no errors done by radio operators possible here ... just INCORRECT intentional statements ... well thought and written in sequence.

A " cover up " ...

Bye Antonio

Antonio you have already admitted that W-W and the 3 RN ship's all have differing timings. All the accounts vary in some details as do the accounts from the KM side. Tovey had to chose from between the times submitted to him, as he was not a participant in the battle.

[Antonio Bonomi]

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