Wadinga wrote: "Either his secretary had cloth ears or the old man was mumbling."
The problem of these guys is that when someone says something (perfectly logical) against the timid attitude of some officers, they have to pretend he was just insane ...
I see no insinuations, but just a winkingly mention of typo
Wadinga wrote; "There was no guarantee at all that his condition could have been achieved, with or without sacrifice"
wadinga wrote:Hello All,
Now we move on to two new 1941 documents, a friendly letter to the First Sea Lord and his friendly reply including the phrase recently presented out of context. These documents are Crown copyright. Notice that there is not the slightest suggestion that the shadowing discussion was the result of a threat of disciplinary action of even the mildest sort.
As can be seen, Pound glibly suggests losing a County with its crew would have been a reasonable price to pay, as some here believe, but such callousness is possible only in hindsight and there is no guarantee that even after such a butcher's bill, contact would have been maintained anyway. Tovey says shadowing in such conditions was "complicated", unlike those who have presented their facile solutions elsewhere, and presume to judge Wake-Walker based on their own extensive experience of such activities.
NB Pound writes Barham when he clearly means Birmingham. Either his secretary had cloth ears or the old man was mumbling. The former rendered 828 squadron as 8 to 8 originally.
Who would like to discuss these documents based on 1941 circumstances, ie not with huge dollops of hindsight or an agenda of "making stuff up" with a view to personal aggrandisement/financial profit?
All the best
paul.mercer wrote: ]
In the aboveletter Admiral Pound states that Rodney did not commence hitting until about 10 minutes and some say 20 minutes.
My question is this, Rodney was on her way to the US for a refit,carrying spare parts and other stuff, so would she have had a fully worked up crew or just a 'scratch' transfer crew and if so would that account for her apparent initial poor gunnery. I appreciate that it was blowing quite hard with a fairly heavy sea, so if she did have her normal complement one would expect better results,
as I presume all RN ships practiced their range finding and exercised their guns in all sorts of conditions, or is it an indicator of not particularly good gunnery throughout the Navy (with one or two exceptions)? If the latter is correct (and I hope its not) then it says a lot for Bismarck' range finding and shooting and not very much for Rodney and KGV who were firing on a crippled slow moving target and again not a lot for Hood and PoW in the original actions. One final bit, it was mentioned after the battle that Rodney sustained some damage from the recoil of her own guns, was it because she might have fired full broadsides when the range came down to almost point blank?
Attention was called to a BBC broadcast made by a military officer who had been on board one of his Majesty’s ships in the Bismarck action, which had given an unfavourable impression of our ships’ gunnery. Enquiry was being made by the Admiralty into this matter, and a copy of the broadcast should be circulated to the War Cabinet.
A full report would also be made regarding certain aspects of the action which, prima facie, seemed to require explanation.
A total of 2,876 shells were fired at Bismarck from 0847-1019, most at relatively close ranges (see Table 4). During that time, it is possible that as many as 300-400 shells hit the German ship. Why did she not blow up and sink?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests