Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

several times I have explained you that Rowell on his map drew a 160 degrees turn away to port starting at 06.01 and 30 seconds.
Please go back on this thread and read it thru.
If you do not like to accept it, is your problem, not mine.
Leach_book_page_88.jpg
Leach_book_page_88.jpg (123.61 KiB) Viewed 4660 times
Obviously for the other points I invite you to read carefully once again Ltnt A. Hunter-Terry and Capt. Leach narrative.
If you want to understand what happened in there you find everything in the correct sequence, ... if you do not like it, ... again it is your choice and prerogative and I am ok with it.

Hope that within few days you are not coming back again not accepting were Norfolk was at 06.00, ... like Diagram B shows, .. asking me to explain what I have already explained to you in details days ago and you have refused to comment and mostly accept as it shows.

Are you now convinced about the incorrect statements of 06.13 and 15 sea miles by Adm Tovey on points 17 and 19 of his dispatches or you do still believe on it ?

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

just for the ones that keeps on thinking that PoW was turning to port from 280 to 260 degrees when Hood exploded.

Than Rowell described also what fell toward PoW well after the explosion, ... not coming from the sky, ... just like Hunter-Terry saw as well.

LIEUTENANT COMMANDER GEORGE WILLIAM ROWELL, ROYAL NAVY, "H.M.S. PRINCE OF WALES."

Where were you and what was your duty ? I was on the PoW compass platform as navigating officer.
The flame was comparatively light in colour I should say "5" in exhibit 2. I remember thinking that although the fire was spreading it appeared to be confined to above the boat-deck and there was no indication that it was spreading downwards. "Bismarck's" firing continued to be accurate and salvos fell just short and just over as if she was using some form of zig-zag ladder.
The Vice-Admiral hoisted a second signal for another turn of 20 deg. away but before it could be executed the "Hood" was hit by another salvo.
It was clear that she had been hit because of a throwing up of dark coloured debris from just before the mainmast from a position which I am sure in my own mind was close to the centre line on the boat-deck.
After perhaps two or three seconds there was an uprush of orange coloured flame from this same position and it was apparent that a very serious explosion had resulted.
The flame was followed by a dense column of white smoke which almost had the appearance of steam, and within a few second all that I could see of the "Hood" was her quarter-deck and her fore-top for a moment or two.
The fact that the fore-mast was still visible made me hope that she had not gone, but as I remarked to the Captain that her top was still standing it fell backwards towards us and I then saw that the fater part of the ship was also plunging forwards.
We put the wheel over to starboard to give us a greater clearance from the wreckage and by the time we were abreast of her all that apparently remained were three large sections of the hull which were unrecognisable and themselves slipping into the water.
I formed the very definite opinion at the time that the explosion was the direct result of the second hit made on her and that although the fire which was raging on the boat-deck looked unpleasant it was not the cause of her destruction.
At the time my own impression was that "Hood" was hit by two shells from that salvo which sank her and I gave this as my opinion to the Captain immediately afterwards.
He however thought that there was only one.
Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by wadinga »

Hi Antonio,

It is kind of you to keep repeating things but repetition does not make non-reality a reality.

For instance you state repeatedly
he ordered a 160 degrees turn to port at 06.01 and 30 seconds,
but is a thing you have invented because there is no evidence it happened at all whereas
several times I have explained you that Rowell on his map drew a 160 degrees turn away to port starting at 06.01 and 30 seconds.
is true because Rowell did draw such a map. Although he admitted his timings might be out by up to two minutes.

But there is nothing to make the first statement true, just because the second statement is true. The first statement is just your assertion without any evidence whatsoever. No witness heard him say it, he does not say he said it.

It would appear that you may have originally misunderstood
After retiring on a course of about 160 degs. "Prince of Wales" circled to port, steadying up on a course of 250 degs.
and taken the magic number 160 and the word retiring and ignored all the other information in the sentence. Then conflated in your mind with a later statement about withdrawing, decided the withdrawing and retiring are the same thing and moved them from their real time after Y turret ceased to function, to an earlier time before a TURN of about 160 degrees.

Flying debris
CHIEF PETTY OFFICER FRENCH, RECALLED. Witness was cautioned.

788. In your previous evidence I think you said you saw a turret with two guns and also a single gun in the air. Could you describe the flight of this turret and guns.

As regards the turret, when I first saw it it was over the after end of the smoke. Not as high as the maintop. It rose a little and then fell gunhouse first into the water. The gun first caught my eye as the turret was falling and it had already started to fall. At first I thought it was a bit of the mainmast but it turned over and over during it's (sic) descent and I was convinced that it was a gun.
789. Could you say approximately where the turret fell into the water?

I should say approximately one third of the distance apart, from the "Hood".
790. What size splash did it make?

It made, I should say a wide splash but not high.
791. Could you say where the gun fell?

The gun fell slightly nearer our own ship.
792. Were your ideas of distance and size sufficiently clear to be able to say whether the gun was a 15" or 4" gun?

I should say definitely 15".
793. Does a similar answer apply to the turret?

Exactly.
And
SERGEANT TERENCE CHARLES FREDERICK BROOKS, ROYAL MARINES, Ply G X 1209, "H.M.S. PRINCE OF WALES". Called and cautioned.....I took my eye away from the periscope. When I looked through my periscope again I was in time to see a black pall of smoke out of which I distinctly saw a 15" gun thrown through the air followed by what appeared to be the roof of a turret.
For Alberto

I do not find a turn to port to follow Hood immaterial because , for me, nothing that actually happened is immaterial. I do not have an agenda to prove Leach guilty. I do not consider time spent considering the evidence of witness Coates or witness Brookes wasted because their statements contradict the story I have invented about Leach. Because I have not invented a story that Leach ordered a turn of 160 degrees, under smoke. Antonio will not address Coates or Brookes' statements because he knows they are unanswerable.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by alecsandros »

wadinga wrote:
Because I have not invented a story that Leach ordered a turn of 160 degrees, under smoke.
Who did , then ?

Or perhaps Prince of Wales was manouvreing on her own, like a ghost ship... :stubborn:

This is getting pretty ridiculous.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Wadinga,

so Rowell drew a turn of 160 degrees to port on PoW Official battle maps still visible on the KEW archives.
At least we agree about it, since they are still available with his signature on it in original form.

Who ordered it ? ( the correct answer = Capt Leach )
When ? ( the correct answer = 06.01 and 30 seconds you can realize on the 3 available maps yourself )

Will you agree that the subject turn was retreating, disengaging and breaking off the engagement for PoW ?
It should be fairly easy to realize it since PoW was than sailing on the opposite direction compared to the enemy at the end of it at 06.04 ( Y turret local 3 salvoes all fired ).

Once you have realized it you read again the 3 Capt. Leach radio messages and his narrative and you should be able on your own to put the 2 pieces together.

I have NOT invented anything, I only used my logic putting several available evidences together. Will you be able to ?

Regarding the to port at 06.00 from 280 to 260.

Once you read point 7 on the summary of the Second Board of Inquiry, you will find the confirmation to Rowell statement.

NEVER EXECUTED !

So it is clear and Official it was planned, maybe ordered too, ... but NEVER EXECUTED by PoW.

At last this is what the Official documents tell us.

I see your point about Coates and Brooke, but even if they believed what they wrote and stated, ... not ALL the witness are reliable ... and reading the board of inquiry you realize it pretty well.

Now if you still want to proceed with this " theory " ... tell me who is the one inventing stuffs now ... :wink:

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio, according this map the turn to 160° doesn't start before 6:02:10.

Image
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Wadinga wrote: "Because I have not invented a story that Leach ordered a turn of 160 degrees, under smoke."
Pow turned 160° to port starting the turn at 6:01:30, under smoke. As Leach was her Captain.....I would assume, if not proven the contrary, that he ordered it: has the discipline in the RN changed recently :wink: ?

In his narrative Leach himself said he ordered the retreat, therefore.....only one conclusion is possible, all the others are just speculations.

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)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

well I see that a number 160° is creating some confusion around, someone confused a turn away ARC of 160 degrees, ... with a COURSE of 160 degrees taken AFTER the disengagement occurred, please read CAREFULLY Capt J.C. Leach narrative about it I attach here after :
After retiring on a course of about 160 degrees. "Prince of Wales" circled to port, steadying up on a course of 250 degrees.
So, in order to eliminate this confusion you are making between a turn away of about 160 degrees and a course taken after of about 160 degrees, I am going to show you in detail what I mean on the real PoW battle map Plan 4.

To make it easier for you to understand the difference I will define the " TURN AWAY " started at 06.01 and 30 seconds ordered by Capt Leach being of 159 degrees, so we make a difference on the number that is creating so much confusion on you.
The TURN AWAY is defined on the attached map with reference letter A and it is the RED ARC on the map.


Similarly I will define as 166 degrees ( measured on the attached map ) the course taken by PoW AFTER retiring and BEFORE circling to port to assume a 250 degrees stable course.
The course of 166 degrees taken AFTER disengaging ( after is the KEY word here ) will be defined on the attached map with the letter B in GREEN.

Last, I have defined the stable course of 250 degrees taken by PoW after having circled to port with a letter C in BLUE.

Hope now having changed a bit the numbers you will NOT be confused anymore.
PoW_159_turn away_ to 166_course.jpg
PoW_159_turn away_ to 166_course.jpg (27.69 KiB) Viewed 4591 times
The RED area is the disengagement Capt Leach declared being ordered on his 3 radio messages and on his narrative, the ARC away from the enemy after having cleared Hood wreckage and made BEFORE the Y turret fired in local control starting at 06.03 ( ref. PoW gunnery map ), because that turret fired DURING the turn away ( own Capt Leach words ) so it is clear that the disengagement was already ordered and ON GOING at that point.
It was considered expedient to break off the action and consolidate the position, and the ship, after being manoeuvred round the remains of "Hood", turned away behind a smoke screen. "Y" Turret fired in local during the turn as smoke blanked the after director.
It is ALL written on Official documents for the ones able to read and mostly to understand and accept the reality as it shows.

Here Capt Leach narrative of June 4th, 1941.

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... #P391Leach

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Same document:
And at 0602 compass platform was hit and majority of personnel killed. Navigating Officer was wounded; Commanding Officer unhurt.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

@Herr Nilsson: IF it was true (and it is not, please refer to what has alredy been demonstrated in this thread), then Capt.Leach retreated PoW from the fight even before receiving a single hit from BS........ Welcome to the prosecution side :lol: !

Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
"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)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

Marc, on the previous radio message Capt Leach declared that time being : 06.02 and 30 seconds.

So which one do I have to believe from Capt Leach ? Why he reduced of 30 seconds the time after ??

But it is worst than that, ... from Capt Leach own narrative you can read that the hit on the after funnel of PoW occurred after the hit on the compass platform ( Sean does not like it ).

Ltnt Hunter-Terry declared it occurred at 06.01 more or less and the Hood board of Inquiry declared Ltnt Hunter-Terry being the most reliable witness with perfect timing on the spot at hand written at time of action.

Rowell PoW Official maps are done in line with Ltnt Hunter-Terry timing and NOT with Capt Leach.

So, in conclusion, it is obvious that one of the 2 between Capt Leach and Ltnt Hunter-Terry is INCORRECT !

Up to you to decide which one of the 2 you assume being incorrect now.

Based on the board of inquiry evaluations and Rowell map showing the disengagement starting at 06.01 and 30 seconds, I assume Ltnt Hunter-Terry is CORRECT and Capt Leach was INCORRECT with his declared timing on that case.

Do you want additional confirmations ?

Well, look at Y turret local control fired salvoes timing perfectly marked on the gunnery plot at 06.03 and 10 seconds and go backwards with the events listed by Capt Leach himself, ... and you will realize once again that the CORRECT timings are the one of Hunter-Terry and Rowell, ... and NOT the single time declared and after even corrected by Capt Leach himself.

Everything realized using ONLY official documents ... plus my logic.

Where does your logic drives you now ?

As you can see it is the need to make choices that puts some Officers under a different light, ... NOT my personal intention to offend them personally.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by paulcadogan »

Hi folks,

I'd like to inject this official evidence into the discussion of hit timing and invite you all to draw your conclusions or give your explanations.

From McMullen's gunnery report (which is very precise because of ranges and the recorded timing of salvos - allowing him to time the controlled firing to 8 minutes 58 seconds).
7. The 5.25-in. armament opened fire at a range of 18,600 yards. After firing a deflection triple, a 15-in. shell passed through the superstructure supporting the H.A. directors.

The shot caused the director to jam temporarily in training and the Control Officer of the latter ordered all turrets to go into "aft control". This was carried out, but about the same time a 15-in. shell burst on the boat deck and seriously upset the after starboard H.A. director. The crew of this director had already been considerably blasted by "Y" turret firing on a forward bearing. The 15-in. shell burst threw the Control Officer off his feet, broke his telephone lead, and a splinter hit his earphones and very slightly wounded him. By the time he had regained control of the situation, the target was lost behind smoke astern.
During the first action after firing salvo 12, a heavy hit was felt on the starboard side and the director setting mechanical pointer was seen to be oscillating violently. At the same time a fuze was noticed to blow at the panel in the 14-in. T.S. The director setting control trigger was used to move off the mechanical pointer. On release, the pointer settled in line with the indicator pointer and no further trouble was experienced.
1) Now.18,600 yards, based on the range plot, is the equivalent of just before 0558 and this is noted on the plot. The guns fired 3 salvos (a "deflection triple") - interval unknown, but the 5.25's had a high rate of fire - then a "15-inch shell" went through the support for the directors. PoW was NOT under fire by Bismarck at this time. BUT PG WAS firing at her and....official document again....JASPER states in his report the his salvos "zeroed in" on PoW at "about 0559"!!

2) After the disabling of the forward HACS director by that hit, control was passed to the aft director which had been blasted by PoW's aft turret, but before the director could take over the hit on the funnel took place "upsetting" things.

3) The "heavy hit" felt at salvo 12 which caused the pointers to oscillate and blew a fuse in the TS - salvo 12 was shortly after 0559. Could an 8-inch shell passing through the support for the forward HACS director (without exploding or it would have wreaked considerably more havoc and killed the HACS crew and riddled the main DCT with shrapnel) create enough of a jolt to affect the pointers and the TS way below decks? Or would it have to be a shell that actually exploded?

4) So which hit, besides the HACS hit, could have struck PoW and exploded just after 0559 ( at salvo 12)? Is this the funnel hit? We see that the hit prevented the aft HACS director from taking over the quick-firing 5.25 firing after only 3 salvos which started before 0558. If it was, then this suggests the hit either was scored by Prinz Eugen (as Wadinga has suggested) who had zeroed in and started firing for effect OR Bismarck had already shifted fire to PoW!! :think: :D

So with all respect to Lt. Hunter-Terry, who I do believe faithfully noted what he percieved, we do have a more precise way of determining the time of those shell impacts from the gunnery report.

What do y'all thing of that? :?: :think:
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1580
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Herr Nilsson »

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,

Marc, on the previous radio message Capt Leach declared that time being : 06.02 and 30 seconds.

So which one do I have to believe from Capt Leach ? Why he reduced of 30 seconds the time after ??

But it is worst than that, ... from Capt Leach own narrative you can read that the hit on the after funnel of PoW occurred after the hit on the compass platform ( Sean does not like it ).

Ltnt Hunter-Terry declared it occurred at 06.01 more or less and the Hood board of Inquiry declared Ltnt Hunter-Terry being the most reliable witness with perfect timing on the spot at hand written at time of action.

Rowell PoW Official maps are done in line with Ltnt Hunter-Terry timing and NOT with Capt Leach.

So, in conclusion, it is obvious that one of the 2 between Capt Leach and Ltnt Hunter-Terry is INCORRECT !

Up to you to decide which one of the 2 you assume being incorrect now.

Based on the board of inquiry evaluations and Rowell map showing the disengagement starting at 06.01 and 30 seconds, I assume Ltnt Hunter-Terry is CORRECT and Capt Leach was INCORRECT with his declared timing on that case.

Do you want additional confirmations ?

Well, look at Y turret local control fired salvoes timing perfectly marked on the gunnery plot at 06.03 and 10 seconds and go backwards with the events listed by Capt Leach himself, ... and you will realize once again that the CORRECT timings are the one of Hunter-Terry and Rowell, ... and NOT the single time declared and after even corrected by Capt Leach himself.

Everything realized using ONLY official documents ... plus my logic.

Where does your logic drives you now ?

As you can see it is the need to make choices that puts some Officers under a different light, ... NOT my personal intention to offend them personally.

Bye Antonio :D
Antonio, I don't think in such categories. There is no correct or incorrect. There are some accounts of different people. Some are more, some are less coincident. Some are more, some are less probable.
One day you will have a very beautiful map. A totally logic map perhaps, but still not the truth. It’s just one possible interpretation. You still have problem of the speed of the German ships. You don’t have the PG artillery report of the battle. I think you have at least one or two error in reasoning, which I can’t prove without a trip to the PRO, but I don’t have the time or the money.

Creating such a map is waste of time anyway. The world will not be a better place. The only reason for me to participate was to prevent as much as possible collateral damage to the reputation of some officers, who can’t speak for themselves. But this is also wasting of time. The outcome of this thread was predefined from the beginning. Therefore my final words on that matter:

The Fighting Instructions, which most of you ignore, are in case of Wake-Walker much more important than the Articles of War. Brinkmann on the German side was criticized by Admiral Schmundt, because PG did stay in the battle line and did not retreat. So even the plot is wrong, who cares? I also don’t believe that Wake Walker made the plot himself, but someone from his staff. There is the possibility that the plot made him insecure and therefore he changed his testimony. I think this scenario is much more likely. In dubio pro reo.

I also think it isn’t unusual, that there were changes in Leach’s statements. And even if his recollection was wrong, who cares? I had a motorcycle accident year ago and my recollection of the course of events was already vague minutes after it happened. I don’t believe Leach checked what time it was. I think Leach did what he did, when he thought it was the right time to do. In dubio pro reo.

In Tovey’s dispatch is a typo. Who cares? In dubio pro reo.

We’re discussing this topic for month now. We’re making fools of ourselves.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Paul Cadogan,

nice post, I like it in particular the salvo 12 hit that do deserve more analysis, as I knew it already ... :wink:

Remember that before Bismarck 381 mm started firing at PoW also her secondary 150 mm were firing at her with Prinz Eugen guns starting at around 05.58, just when Adm Lutjens ordered Brinkmann/Jasper to change target and Jasper noticed a hit from Bismarck secondary on PoW on his report ( I already cover this time ago :wink: ).

But before we start doing those additional analysis, it is better to make some clear assumptions.

What PoW Gunnery report called " Boat Deck " hit is just what you after called " After Funnel " hit, it is the same shell and on the attached scheme is the number 3 associated to a Bismarck shell ( in orange color ).
That shell hit the stb crane, than the after funnel and finally smashed the boat deck. It was one shell only ( Ref. PoW damage report official documentation ).
PoW_damages.jpg
PoW_damages.jpg (84.75 KiB) Viewed 4546 times
So based on what you just attached above, I assume Hunter-Terry was correct since that hit, just like Capt Leach wrote, arrived on PoW after the hit on the H.A. port forward director that was received together with the Compass platform one with Bismarck first 381 mm salvo at 06.00 and 50 seconds.

You can double check the event sequence here following from Capt Leach narrative :
1 ) - "Prince of Wales" starboard 5.25" battery was now in action.
2 ) - Course had to be altered to starboard to avoid remains of "Hood"; meanwhile "Bismarck" had shifted main and secondary armament fire quickly and accurately onto "Prince of Wales".
3 ) - A heavy hit was felt almost immediately.
4 ) And at 0602 compass platform was hit and majority of personnel killed. Navigating Officer was wounded; Commanding Officer unhurt.
5 ) - The same salvo severed all fire control leads to the port forward H.A. Director and put the starboard forward H.A. Director out of action temporarily jamming it in training.
6 ) - The control officer of the latter ordered all turrets to go into "After Control".
7 ) - This was carried out, but, about the same time a 15" shell burst on the boat deck and seriously upset the starboard after H.A. Director.
8 ) - The crew of this director had already been considerably blasted by "Y" Turret firing on a forward bearing.
9 ) - The 15" shell burst threw the control officer off his feet and broke his telephone lead.
10 ) - By the time he was again through to the H.A.C.P. The target was lost behind smoke astern.
I hope this puts the word " END " to the discussion about the PoW After Funnel hit ( or Boat Deck hit if you like it better ) being received on board PoW before the hit on the Compass Platform. It was received AFTER it, confirmed by Hunter-Terry, Leach and now also from the Gunnery report you mentioned above.
Thanking Hunter-Terry precise battle timing we have the time of that hit on the PoW after funnel ( or boat deck if you like it better ) it was during the minute 06.01. This means that the Compass platform hit was received before that time, very simple and logic.

From Ltnt A. Hunter-Terry :
At this time we were turning to port between the "Hood" and the enemy and I observed debris falling towards "Prince of Wales", in particular one large piece that looked like the main-mast or a derrick. 06.01, "Prince of Wales" was hit by a shell in the after funnel and this obstructed my attention.
Consequently when the hit on the After Funnel ( Boat Deck ) was received the PoW was already disengaging turning away to port between Hood and the enemy.
Using Rowell map as reference, we can assume it was after 06.01 and 30 seconds obviously.

This made clear, hopefully once for good, lets look at that "A heavy hit was felt almost immediately " which for this moment I assume to be the one after salvo 12 you mentioned as well as the same one Jasper was referring to he noticed from Bismarck secondary when he shifted target from Hood to PoW.

I love this, .. this is the way things should be done .... BRAVO !

Bye Antonio :D
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Herr Nilsson,
Antonio, I don't think in such categories. There is no correct or incorrect. There are some accounts of different people. Some are more, some are less coincident. Some are more, some are less probable.
One day you will have a very beautiful map. A totally logic map perhaps, but still not the truth. It’s just one possible interpretation. You still have problem of the speed of the German ships. You don’t have the PG artillery report of the battle. I think you have at least one or two error in reasoning, which I can’t prove without a trip to the PRO, but I don’t have the time or the money.
Creating such a map is waste of time anyway. The world will not be a better place. The only reason for me to participate was to prevent as much as possible collateral damage to the reputation of some officers, who can’t speak for themselves. But this is also wasting of time. The outcome of this thread was predefined from the beginning. Therefore my final words on that matter:
The Fighting Instructions, which most of you ignore, are in case of Wake-Walker much more important than the Articles of War. Brinkmann on the German side was criticized by Admiral Schmundt, because PG did stay in the battle line and did not retreat. So even the plot is wrong, who cares? I also don’t believe that Wake Walker made the plot himself, but someone from his staff. There is the possibility that the plot made him insecure and therefore he changed his testimony. I think this scenario is much more likely. In dubio pro reo.
I also think it isn’t unusual, that there were changes in Leach’s statements. And even if his recollection was wrong, who cares? I had a motorcycle accident year ago and my recollection of the course of events was already vague minutes after it happened. I don’t believe Leach checked what time it was. I think Leach did what he did, when he thought it was the right time to do. In dubio pro reo.
In Tovey’s dispatch is a typo. Who cares? In dubio pro reo.
We’re discussing this topic for month now. We’re making fools of ourselves.


Marc, I will be more than satisfied to be able to draw the best available map of this battle and I fell I am pretty close to do it now.
Not having the KEY witnesses still alive here that will be the best I can do, surely my current one is already much better than the ones posted for 72 years, the future one will be improved.

It is NOT necessary for you or anybody else to prevent collateral damages to the Officers reputation. This will be seriously impacted just by reading still available official documents into the PRO in KEW. In this case you are wasting your time, not me.

The outcome of this thread was to demonstrate that 06.13 was INCORRECT and 15 sea miles for Norfolk and Suffolk being the closest distance from the German warship that fatal morning was INCORRECT as well.
The mission has been fully accomplished on both cases as you may have realized lately.

Fighting instructions or Articles of War I do not care. Wake-Walker, Leach, Phillips and Ellis all got medals and they should have not received them, they should have gone under an inquiry.
Brinkmann did not receive any medal for his action at DS while in Germany.

"The plot " is a shame as far as logic and credibility, ... given what they had available as official maps, ... better NOT to provide other definitions for it and STOP here about it.

Similarly I avoid to write about the Officers involved on all this, ... it is NOT necessary anymore from my side.

I respect your opinions, I keep mine.

By the way, I think the time is arrived to close this thread argument here.

NOTE for you Marc :
I think you have at least one or two error in reasoning, which I can’t prove without a trip to the PRO, but I don’t have the time or the money.
You can write me a private message and I will be happy to provide you all the original material from PRO in KEW you need to do what you like to, NO PROBLEMS for me.

Bye Antonio :D
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
Post Reply