Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

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,

You have said:
By the way, I think the time is arrived to close this thread argument here.
But there's so much more to say! So many contentious assertions to be challenged. So many fascinating pieces of evidence currently ignored to be thrust into the limelight. :cool:

You have quoted the following from Rowell
“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 is the signal which was not executed, ie not hauled down. It says nothing about any turn not being executed. We know Hood’s rudder is turned, therefore we know she started to turn. Leach knew he was intended to turn, but another hit had made impossible the issuing of the signal. He knew here was no intention for PoW to keep charging towards the enemy on 280T, he knew he had to turn to port as soon as possible.

I see that instead of addressing Coates and Brookes’ testimony seriously, you have dismissed them with
“I see your point about Coates and Brooke, but even if they believed what they wrote and stated, ... not ALL the witness are reliable”
Well, you can add another “unreliable” witness to the list, unreliable, like the others only, in that they report events which do not fit with your inflexible assertions.

Fritz-Otto Busch!
You were kind enough to provide the following material earlier in the thread.
“In Busch's English language The Story of the Prince Eugen (1958) we have
The range was now changing as the British, obeying the last signal of their flagship to open the range, were caught while turning to port, and suddenly steered hard to starboard and towards the Germans, in order to avoid the wreckage of their badly hit comrade”
And
“FO BUSCH on 1943 book Even the “Prince of Wales” has changed course after transiting the position of the sinking of her flagship, and she has turned hard to port. She shows bow left, then shortly thereafter bow right, and finally her stern, and seeks to flee at high speed.
One perceives from the strange manoeuvres of the “Prince of Wales” that the sinking of the flagship and the hits the ship had obtained itself, that someone has lost his head and could not quite figure out how to proceed next. Finally, it was decided to retreat and to rapidly escape from the horribly accurate fire of the “Bismarck”.”
It would be useful to have a German speaker check the 1943 text in German as I interpret “shows bow left, then shortly thereafter bow right,” to mean PoW showed her port bow to Prinz Eugen then her starboard. This describes the wreck-evading starboard turn continuing all the way past the line of sight to PG ie to a heading above 330T before turning to port again and eventually away.

Additionally Hunter-Terry must enter the sin-bin with the other “unreliables”. He says debris was still falling whilst PoW was turning to port. Since the guns, turrets and masts described by other witnesses would not have stayed in the air for very long, seconds after Hood’s explosion at, nominally 06:00, PoW was turning , not to starboard, but to port seconds after 06:00. Leach had to over-ride this turn with another hard turn to starboard, just as described by the witnesses.
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 ).
There are two hits in this area see the excellent photos at http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... amage1.htm, the Crane and Funnel hit from forward (said to be 15") and the Boat Deck hit (definitely 8") which penetrated the deck (see photo), and bulkheads cleanly with measurable holes and ended up being picked up by two crewmen in the 5.25" handling room and thrown overboard. Comments are made about picking up debris in this Upper Deck area, which is originally thought to be debris from Hood but was later described as bits of the crane. Does anyone know of identifiable bits of 15" AP found in this area? This Crane and Funnel shell did not perform like a 15" AP as it's fuse should surely not have detonated above the Upper Deck, after a glancing blow on the crane, and even if it did the heavy AP head should have punched a mighty hole in the deck whereas there are merely shrapnel holes. Performance much more like an 8"HE in fact.

Food for thought? :think:

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
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,

Capt. Leach is in line with Rowell on his narrative. Same goes for Jasper, than Brinkmann and Reimann carefully describing the PoW action to Schmundt.
Everything in less than 2 minutes between 06.01 and 06.02, than PoW was showing her stern only sailing away retreating.

If you want to include this F.O. Busch 1958 statement into the unreliability list just do it, the list is pretty long on this and other events.

But, on his 1943 book F.O. Busch did NOT describe the turn to port, only the one to starboard toward the German ships.

You took the statements after PoW passed the Hood debris area and had already turned away hard to port and was already retreating.
Even the “Prince of Wales” has changed course after transiting the position of the sinking of her flagship, and she has turned hard to port.
She shows bow left, then shortly thereafter bow right, and finally her stern, and seeks to flee at high speed.


You should have taken few pages before this one :
Then a transmission came through, I think from the Commander: ‘The first has exploded, the second is aflame.’ But that was obviously broadcast to all stations on the ship.”
As we toil in the foretop cowl, the second – it was the “Prince of Wales”, the newest and battleship of the British – comes into view in the glass. It now lies within certain and rapid firing range of the “Bismarck”. I notice the unusual shape of the ship: the powerful and high forward superstructure, the multi-barreled turrets on the forward section, the relatively short funnels that are separated wider than on the first opponent’s, “Hood”. The aft funnel has a ring around the middle. That is obviously a platform for searchlights. But, above all, the massive and compact superstructures projecting upward between the turrets and the foretop mast, make it presently difficult to categorize it among the known British battleship types. That is no wonder – none of us had ever seen the “Prince of Wales”!
[The 1940 Weyer handbook has only a sketch of the waterline design plan, p. 225. Titled: Duke of York, Beatty, Jellicoe, King George V, and Prince of Wales. The 1941/42 is more detailed, with photos that were not available on “Prinz Eugen”.]
Now the [opponent’s] ship fires: the housings of the stacks light up bright pink in the reflection of the afterglow. Now his intermediate artillery also fires. Flashes came from below the superstructures and from behind the aft funnel. It is not a continuous level string like on the “Hood”: these are distinct separated shot groups from the 13.2 cm guns that are firing here.
The opponent turns now somewhat towards us, since – as it became known shortly thereafter – he had to dodge the ruins of his flagship. The dark-hulled ship now passes the smoldering field of devastation – an unforgettable sight. His bow slowly plows through the gray-blue waters of grave of the “Hood”, dispersing the debris. The battleship appears in sharp contrast against the clouds of smoke alongside and aft: and here, verily, there rises, above the masts and higher, at about a 45 degree angle, from behind “Prince of Wales” who (also already on fire amidships and aft) is firing rapidly successive salvoes and belching heavy smoke from both funnels. The long forward section of the sinking battlecruiser, from the forward turrets to the superstructure, becomes visible and projects through the smoke and darkness. A straddling salvo of the “Bismarck” drives white-foaming water columns sky-high in front and aft of the battleship, which now, under cover of the “Hood’s” smoke cloud, seems to steer a course similar to ours.
The Hood First board of Inquiry judged the reliability of Hunter-Terry and his event timing in writings using capital letters.

It is enough one of the 2 hits, the crane-funnel Nr 3, that after smashed the boat deck area with debris. That one according to Hunter-Terry most reliable timing occurred into the minute 06.01 with the PoW already turning away disengaging, just as Rowell maps shows after 06.01 and 30 with PoW retreating.

The German witnesses and timing and the British witnesses and timing match. Both for timing as well as overall event duration : less than 2 minutes after Hood exploded.

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 a little unreasonable to dismiss Busch's 1958 English language record of a port turn before the starboard avoidance simply because it is not in his earlier German language work. If he says the British were turning to port when Hood blew up, that is his evidence.

I made an error and I agree these are the turn to port (shows bow left) then to starboard (shows bow right) after the main turnaway, as seen from aft of PoW by PG between 06:06 and 06:10. That smokescreen was pretty ineffectual. I would say when Leach was vacillating about re-engaging with these course changes until the news about Y turret gets to him. "And finally his stern" refers to steadying on 166T and definitely withdrawing.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
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,

Sean my friend, … what can I tell you … on 1943 F.O. Busch was not writing that turn, ... and on his 1958 revisited book in English he did.

Why ??? :think:

I think I have the answer just by reading RN Capt. Russell Grenfell book ( first edited on 1948 ) at page 42 on my edition by Panther of 1957.

F.O. Busch was a writer that did try to write a lot on his narrative, enriching as much as he could with details and he did not have the British side details on 1943.
But he did have them on 1958, ... he surely had at that time read the Grenfell book.

It was on Grenfell book as far as I can read that the “confusion " of the turns and timing started.

Grenfell in fact completely mixed up the 20 degrees Holland squadron turns ( he totally missed the one from 300 to 280 at 05.55 with the one at 06.00 planned and never executed to go from 280 course to 260 course ) and wrote for the first time ever that Hood was turning while being hit and PoW was turning too.
He was totally confused on his narrative and battle map between 05.55 and 06.00, between the first 20 degrees turn and the never executed second 20 degrees turn.

Read yourself :
Grenfell_page_42.jpg
Grenfell_page_42.jpg (88.86 KiB) Viewed 5869 times
Obviously he could have NOT read Rowell and Leach documents stating they did not turn at 06.00, he did not have PoW original battle maps on 1948.

This happens when you do not follow a map and a timetable like Grenfell did on his narrative, ... and he got confused as we can read and clearly realize today.

Studying this battle material I have noticed that many book authors just took inputs ( not necessarily correct ones ) from previously published books, just like happen today with copycats and plagiarist.
You want an example, ... I wrote Norfolk fired at Denmark Strait on my 2005 article. Everybody else writing about DS battle after copied from it.
Today I know I was wrong on 2005, ... but they copied me blindly anyhow and now books are out with that error.

I knew you were going to agree with me about that “ bow “ appearance after the turn away disengaging done by Capt. Leach after having cleared the Hood wreckage area.
I knew it because you are a good and fair friend of mine and we are only looking for the truth without any other interest :wink: ... SUPER PARTES !
At that point PoW was showing mainly her stern as we can see on photo NH 69731.
YES, the smoke screen was not so effective as we can see on that photo.

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,

Once again I think it is pushing it a bit to suggest Busch in his 1958 book adds things he didn't see, simply because Grenfell might have mentioned them in a book Busch might have read. You are still not admitting that Brookes, Coates and Hunter-Terry all say PoW was turning to port at the time Hood exploded. Hood's rudder says she was turning to port.

You say of Grenfell
Obviously he could have NOT read Rowell and Leach documents stating they did not turn at 06.00


Once again you put words into Leach's mouth. Previously you have stated he odered a turn: There is no evidence he ORDERED a turn of 160 degrees. You have inferred he did. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but there is no actual evidence. Likewise: He did not say he DID NOT TURN TO PORT to follow Hood at 06:00. Neither he nor Rowell mention it, but considering the destruction of the Action Log and the trauma they both underwent shortly afterwards, it is quite possible they neglected to record/remember such a turn. Rowell and Leach were both killed by the Japanese, but there is no guarantee that with his level of clearance Grenfell did not have access to all the material not released to the general public until 1972 (or whenever0. Grenfell's book is an outstanding account and he undoubtedly interviewed many eye-witnesses.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
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,

Sean, about F.O. Busch ... that is the only way he could have had that info ... from 1943 until 1958 ... of course it is my personal opinion.

Still ... he changed from a previous own correct declaration ... to an incorrect one .. written only on Grenfell book at the time.

Talking about Capt Leach :
During the approach "Hood" made - "G.I.C." - followed by - "G.O.B.1" - just before opening fire at 0552 1/2. Range approx. 25,000 yards. "Prince of Wales" opened fire at 0553. "Bismarck" replied with extreme accuracy on "Hood". 2nd or 3rd salvo straddled and fire broke out in "Hood" in the vicinity of the port after 4" gun mounting. Lighter ship engaged "Prince of Wales". "Price of Wales" opening salvo was observed over, 6th was seen to straddle. At this time "Prince of Wales" had five 14" guns in action. "Y" turret would not bear. Fire in "Hood" spread rapidly to the mainmast. A turn of 2 blue at 0555 opened "A" Arcs at "Prince of Wales" ninth salvo. "Hood" had a further 2 blue flying when, at 0600, just after "Bismarck's" 5th salvo, a huge explosion occurred between "Hood's" after funnel and mainmast and she sank in three or four minutes. "Hood" had fired five or six salvos but fall of shot was not seen, possibly because this coincided with firing of "Prince of Wales'" guns.

"Prince of Wales" starboard 5.25" battery was now in action. 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". A heavy hit was felt almost immediately. And at 0602 compass platform was hit and majority of personnel killed. Navigating Officer was wounded; Commanding Officer unhurt.
As you can see and read, Capt Leach is NOT in line with G. Brooke book.

He wrote about the 05.55 turn to port of 20 degrees from 300 to 280 course, just as Rowell PoW maps shows ... and this demonstrate both Grenfell and Brooke being incorrect and unreliable about the turns and related timings.

About the 20 degrees planned at 06.00 ... from 280 to 260 ... you can see and read the differences on the wording Capt Leach used :

1 ) for the 05.55 -> A turn of 2 blue ( 20 degrees ) OPENED ... so it was executed for sure.

2 ) for the 06.00 -> Hood had a 2 Blue FLYING .... so he did NOT write it was executed as before ... consequently NOT executed, like Rowell clearly stated and drew.

The turn away after having cleared Hood wreckage is written on 3 radio messages by Capt Leach and on his narrative.
The fact that it was a 160 degrees ARC, ... is possible to be measured on Rowell PoW battle maps.
That was the moment Y turret started firing DURING the turn away Capt Leach had ordered ... :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
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,

you wrote :
... but there is no guarantee that with his level of clearance Grenfell did not have access to all the material not released to the general public until 1972 (or whenever ).

Grenfell's book is an outstanding account and he undoubtedly interviewed many eye-witnesses.


I agree with you, ... it is an outstanding book, ... unfortunately NOT defect free ... and with no timing or precise data references on it, ... just a narrative.

His battle map, so INCORRECT with PoW turn at 05.55 and with Hood exploding at 05.56, created same problem on FO. Busch later map too ( I posted them both time ago ) that is why I think they read and influenced each others.

His errors I assume were due to the fact he did not have access to ALL the original material I saw and took in KEW, ... but it is my personal opinion of course.

I would like to underline here that better than others after him, ... Grenfell did NOT write 15 sea miles for the cruisers ... just out of range ... and did NOT write 06.13 for PoW disengagement ... and he surely had read Adm Tovey dispatches on the London Gazette of 1947 :wink: .

His description of Capt Leach retreating reasons is the best diplomatic one I have read on books ... much better than others after him and right on the money.

IMHO his book was the base used by many others after him ... that did NOT improve it ... and ONLY proliferated the errors on it ... adding the data Capt RN Russel Grenfell avoided to write ... :think: ... a very wise guy ... :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
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,

Don't "beat yourself up" so much about things, sometimes things we blame/credit ourselves for items which are not our fault :D

You say
You want an example, ... I wrote Norfolk fired at Denmark Strait on my 2005 article. Everybody else writing about DS battle after copied from it.
Today I know I was wrong on 2005, ... but they copied me blindly anyhow and now books are out with that error.
German writers have suggested this long before you put pen to page.
Maps by Elfrath show it, I mentioned in my article, we have debated since long ago what the the mysterious splashes south of the German's track shown on PG's battleplan are, and I suspect if you translate the legend on the Battle Map in Im Ersten Gefecht you will find it says Norfolk "attempted to interfere". Which implies she fired. Only you have the full Norfolk log entry to confirm she didn't.

As I have included in the other thread here is the confirmation from Im Ersten Gefecht that Busch witnessed the second turn away unrecorded on either the Gun Salvo Map or Rowell's map or in Leach's narrative, I copy it here as well as recording my continuing admiration for Ulrich Rudophsky's translation and this website in presenting such valuable original information :clap: :clap: :clap:
. It feels like an eternity, but it is a brief moment in time, when we observe over there a giant brilliant water column in front of the long ship, which has probably turned away on a change in course, and now longer points as sharply as at the start of the battle. Suddenly, everything is enveloped in smoke that pours forth the opponent.
It is a reasonable assumption that PoW conformed with the flagship which also confirms Brooke etc as witnesses to a turn to port before the starboard avoidance turn.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
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,

you wrote :
It is a reasonable assumption that PoW conformed with the flagship which also confirms Brooke etc as witnesses to a turn to port before the starboard avoidance turn.
No Sean, ... it is NOT a reasonable assumption, ... since neither the Royal Navy Admiralty on the Battle Summary Nr 5 leaves a chance to that as you can read yourself.
Battle_Summary_Nr_5.jpg
Battle_Summary_Nr_5.jpg (65.89 KiB) Viewed 5780 times
Thanks for you nice words above my friend :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 )
Djoser
Senior Member
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:45 am
Location: Key West Florida USA

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by Djoser »

wadinga wrote:All

It is amazing to read pages of speculation about the deliberations Captain Leach might have gone through in the 120 secs before he decided to betray hundreds of years of tradition, dishonour the flag and run from the enemy.

On the other hand as I have previously suggested, maybe he spent the time staggering around like Tom Hanks on Omaha Beach after the mortar bomb goes off next to him. Deafened, stunned, probably covered in blood and gore I believe he was incapable even of countermanding the "hard-a-port" order he had given seconds before the shell passed through the Compass Platform. I don't believe he told anyone to "turn 160 degrees to port" or to turn to a heading away from the enemy, he just didn't countermand the last order he had given, another emergency turn, this time to port to avoid swinging around in a circle towards the enemy. Virtually everybody else in the compartment was dead, dying or severely injured. He described himself as "unhurt" because not being pulped, or with his blood gushing from a slashed femoral artery, permanently deafened or even having a huge wooden splinter driven through his cheek, he was pretty fortunate compared with everybody else in the compartment.

Here is the description of the moment from Sick bay attendent Sam Wood
I stepped back ten yards and started up the ladder to the compass platform, two thirds of my upper body were through the hatch, suddenly there was a flash in front of my eyes and I felt the searing heat, I heard no explosion and everything appeared to be in slow motion, I was sucked up and seemed to float across the bridge area I finally came to rest on the deck amongst a shambles of torn metal and human bodies , I heard a voice say "hang on doc I think we have been hit" I recall giggling at the silliness of such a remark, I got to my feet the first wounded man I got to was Leading Seaman Tucker he was lying under a pile of debris I remember he told me to leave him as he did not feel too bad, I pulled back the debris and saw his left leg was hanging on by a thin strip of flesh his femoral artery spurting like a fountain, I quickly put a tourniquet on his leg. I injected morphine and organised his removal, other casualties were dealt with as I came across them, losing count of how many, there were. Lt Esmonde Knight a well known actor in his pre- war days, blood pouring from his face around his eyes, I treated him wondering what his future would hold , I remember Boy Signalman Johnstone, recognizable only by the crossed flags on his arm and later by his pay-book, the navigator with a hole in his cheek and so it went on, for how long I cannot recall, the bridge and compass platform were a complete shambles,
Some contributors seem to be keener even than Winston (the World's Worst Back Seat Driver) to pin something on Leach. Minutes later after some more turns by which time the Captain was in charge again, and with most of his major armament out of action he turned a complete circle before resuming a shadowing course. He had disengaged from the enemy but he was not running away. As for re-engaging Wake-Walker explains his considerations. Unlike the forlorn hopes Rawalpindi, Jervis Bay, Acasta, Glowworm, Ardent or Li-Wo W-W knew another chance would come.

However re-engaging would require Germans to co-operate.

All the best

wadinga
Wow it has taken me months to get to page 25 or so of this amazing marathon thread. One of the best posts yet. I got the irony lol. I do think there is a case against Leach, very strictly speaking perhaps, if you want to compare the situation to other 'Seemingly hopeless odds? let's attack anyway.'' moments in British naval history. But every time it comes back to this hit on the compass platform it comes to a situation where the vast majority of people would be out of it for days. Much less snapping right back to full command powers and analytical ability.

I am no chickenshit, trust me--have been in some hairy situations working a couple of rough clubs. But I doubt very much I could have either bounced back or managed to be more aggressive than Leach.

Also, from my experience in brawls, and the experience of many others in historical battles, the exact timing, course, who fired what at whom--all that stuff is subjective, even when it is being recorded very close to the time it is going on. You have all done a magnificent job in analyzing all the evidence.

OK now back to page 25 haha...
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

Djoser wrote:
Wow it has taken me months to get to page 25 or so of this amazing marathon thread. One of the best posts yet. I got the irony lol. I do think there is a case against Leach, very strictly speaking perhaps,
I entirely agree with this post and the quotations therein.

Yes, there is a superficial case against Leach. With Tovey in support the case against Leach will fail, as it should.

What is lost in the tunnel vision of this never ending thread is that it was Leach, acting on his own initiative in disregarding Vice-Admiral Holland's original targeting order, caused POW to end Rheinubung by hitting Bismarck before Hood blew up.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

Deleted posting duplication. This thread is too long as it is.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
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 »

@Djoser:
Hi and welcome back to this discussion about the behaviour of some RN officers, including Capt.Leach, on May 24 versus the Naval Discipline Act (formerly the "Articles of War") !

Please take your time to read all the 129 pages..... this is a paragraph of Capt.Leach own narrative on June 4th:
"3. Some explanation remains to be made as to my decision to break off the engagement after the sinking of H.M.S. "Hood" - a decision which clearly invites most critical examination. Prior to the disaster to the "Hood" I felt confident that together we could deal adequately with "Bismarck" and her consort. The sinking of "Hood" obviously changed the immediate situation, and there were three further considerations requiring to be weighed up, of which the first two had been in my mind before action was joined. "
Therefore according to Leach it was not the hit in CP that caused him to run away.

We will possibly never know whether it was this "cold" reasoning or the hit in CP to move Leach to his decision. I personally think he had already decided to withdraw as per his narrative, however the shock of the hit could have forced a quicker and more hasty retreat...... I agree with you, the experience must have been tragic in any case and I'm personally afraid I could have done the same. I just hope not......

However, I would give a medal (DSO awarded in October) NEITHER to a Captain who decide rationally to withdraw from the fight with the most modern British battleship still efficient, NOR to a Captain who is unable to keep calm and continue fighting after the shock of a heavy hit passing close to him, even if his decision was absolutely the RIGHT one (only with hindsight...) :negative:

Bye, Alberto

P.S. Regarding the damage and casualties caused by this hit, please have a look here as well: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6276
"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,

@ RF,

you wrote :
What is lost in the tunnel vision of this never ending thread is that it was Leach, acting on his own initiative in disregarding Vice-Admiral Holland's original targeting order, caused POW to end Rheinubung by hitting Bismarck before Hood blew up.
NO ! :negative:

At least according to Capt. Leach own declaration on his narrative :

" During the approach "Hood" made - "G.I.C." - followed by - "G.O.B.1" - just before opening fire at 05.52 1/2 ".
G.O.B. 1 = shift target one ship right ( so from Prinz Eugen to Bismarck )

You can read the message on page 197 here in :

http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09guns.htm

It is time to stop continuing to write incorrect statements regarding the battle conduct of ViceAdm Lancelot Holland at Denmark Strait, ... and focus on the Officers that should have gone under a board of inquiry instead of having a decoration.

No one yet as written that a different engagement approach by the 2 heavy cruisers ( Norfolk and Suffolk ) could have determined a different battle situation at the beginning ... and the battle was going to develop in a complete different way.

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
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Denmark Strait and RN Articles of War

Post by RF »

Antonio,

Reread the post you have quoted.

I said the ''original targeting order.'' That terminology was used precisely because I am fully aware that a correcting order was given, as you have cited.

I am not rewriting history - Captain Leach had correctly identified his target before the correcting order with the result that unlike Hood POW opened fire on the correct target creating the time in which to score the three hits that were obtained which ended the Rheinubung mission.

With respect, this sort of ''shooting from the hip'' is fairly typical of the entrenched attitudes shown in this thread.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply