racedo, your objection to my suggestion that a superior's order might be challenged if it flies in the face of the known facts seems to be based on the effect it would have on the career of he who objects.
You make my point splendidly! Those who sat around the table that day were not JOs but VSOs, so even more career at stake you might say. Tough! Their responsibility was to see that the best appreciation of the situation was made and thus the best course of action taken. It wasn't, because to a man they deferred to the bizarre, unprecedented, and obstinate opinion of a sick man, and one other.
They failed their country, their Service and, most importantly of all, those in PQ17 and those desperately waiting for the relief it carried.
Poor Show!
You are overlooking the groupthink prevalent in many organisations at senior level where people go down a route because not to goes down badly.
Deference to someone because of their position has time and again led to disaster because people who could challenge either haven't or done it in such a way that nobody believes them. Nobody wants to end someones career because you forever remembered for doing it.
Errors in judgement that have occurred previously but despite the errors the cock up still worked out without it being a disaster because the enemy did something unexpectedly.
Sadly everybody then forgets the errors that led to it and happy it worked out.
Commanders who disobey orders and it turns out ok get away with it, those who disobey and it ends in disaster are not so lucky.
I have no disagreement with you that PQ17 was badly served by those in London.