RohmMohc

The Sinking of the German Battleship Bismarck

Recommended Posts

so because of the discussion here

 

now a special thread for it...

 

The bismarck was shot combat inffefective by over 400 big calibre BB shell hits... yet it sunk because it was scuttled by its Crew... this thesis is covered by Camerons expedition to the wreckages of the bismarck and also by Dr. Robert Ballard who first discovered the wreck...

 

The wreck of Bismarck was discovered on 8 June 1989 by Dr. Robert Ballard, the oceanographer responsible for finding RMS Titanic. Bismarck was found to be resting upright at a depth of approximately 4,791 m (15,719 ft),[136] about 650 km (400 mi) west of Brest. The ship struck an extinct underwater volcano, which rose some 1,000 m (3,300 ft) above the surrounding abyssal plain, triggering a 2 km (1.2 mi) landslide. Bismarck slid down the mountain, coming to a stop two-thirds down.[137]

Ballard's survey found no underwater penetrations of the ship's fully armoured citadel. Eight holes were found in the hull, one on the starboard side and seven on the port side, all above the waterline. One of the holes is in the deck, on the bow's starboard side. The angle and shape indicates the shell that created the hole was fired from Bismarck's port side and struck the starboard anchor chain. The anchor chain has disappeared down this hole.[138] Six holes are amidships, three shell fragments pierced the upper splinter belt, and one made a hole in the main armour belt.[139] Further aft a huge hole is visible, parallel to the aircraft catapult, on the deck. The submersibles recorded no sign of a shell penetration through the main or side armour here, and it is likely that the shell penetrated the deck armour only.[140] Huge dents showed that many of the 14 inch shells fired by King George V bounced off the German belt armour.[141]

Ballard noted that he found no evidence of the internal implosions that occur when a hull that is not fully flooded sinks. The surrounding water, which has much greater pressure than the air in the hull, would crush the ship. Instead, Ballard points out that the hull is in relatively good condition; he states simply that "Bismarck did not implode."[142] This suggests that Bismarck's compartments were flooded when the ship sank, supporting the scuttling theory.[143] Ballard added "we found a hull that appears whole and relatively undamaged by the descent and impact". They concluded that the direct cause of sinking was scuttling: sabotage of engine-room valves by her crew, as claimed by German survivors.[144] Ballard kept the wreck's exact location a secret to prevent other divers from taking artefacts from the ship, a practice he considered a form of grave robbing.[136]

The whole stern had broken away; as it was not near the main wreckage and has not yet been found, it can be assumed this did not occur on impact with the sea floor. The missing section came away roughly where the torpedo had hit, raising questions of possible structural failure.[145] The stern area had also received several hits, increasing the torpedo damage. This, coupled with the fact the ship sank "stern first" and had no structural support to hold it in place, suggests the stern detached at the surface. In 1942 Prinz Eugen was also torpedoed in the stern, which collapsed. This prompted a strengthening of the stern structures on all German capital ships.[144]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point to discuss this really.

 

All historians and experts agree that Bismarck was scuttled, not sank due to battle damage. RN BB guns were very weak for WW2 standards.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Enkidu69 said:

No point to discuss this really.

 

All historians and experts agree that Bismarck was scuttled, not sank due to battle damage. RN BB guns were very weak for WW2 standards.

we try to tell that to SqnLdrAhsokaTano the whole time... he claims that this is "anglophobe propaganda"... well i guess he also thinks that Seydlitz was sunk by the RN... Battlecruiser SMS Seydlitz that is that took 1 Torpedo and 21 BB main calibre shells and made it back...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

we try to tell that to SqnLdrAhsokaTano the whole time...

 

You'll have better results trying to teach a preschooler advanced calculus.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

You'll have better results trying to teach a preschooler advanced calculus.

the best hting is... his arguing style is Somethingaboo style with him simply claiming without any sources..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RohmMohc said:

the best hting is... his arguing style is Somethingaboo style with him simply claiming without any sources..

 

Choogle showed evidence of the turret armor of the Chieftain being 140mm thick at best, but since the source was Russian, apparently it's false. I showed a picture from someone who measured the turret thickness through ultrasound, nope, not good enough either. His source for the apparent 195mm max thickness? Nothing. Just don't bother arguing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

british 14 inch guns where really weak. could only pierce littorio belt at 3500/4000 meters.....not suprised at all that 14 shells where useless against bismarck since the KGV engaged at longer range. Only 2 shells where found to pierce the main belt with little damage too... those where 406 mm fired by the Rodney that in battle closed the range at only 5 km....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bellezza03 said:

british 14 inch guns where really weak. could only pierce littorio belt at 3500/4000 meters.....not suprised at all that 14 shells where useless against bismarck since the KGV engaged at longer range. Only 2 shells where found to pierce the main belt with little damage too... those where 406 mm fired by the Rodney that in battle closed the range at only 5 km....

 

From what I can find on these penetration figures, these large British naval guns compared to the Bismarck's or Littorio's guns is like comparing 75mm M3 to KwK 40 reload excluded. The larger caliber of the British guns may lead to some beautiful results in coastal bombardment, but anti-ship could use some work. Then again, my grasp on ships is limited. I can only argue if it has something similar compared to tanks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

From what I can find on these penetration figures, these large British naval guns compared to the Bismarck's or Littorio's guns is like comparing 75mm M3 to KwK 40 reload excluded. The larger caliber of the British guns may lead to some beautiful results in coastal bombardment, but anti-ship could use some work. Then again, my grasp on ships is limited. I can only argue if it has something similar compared to tanks.

only reasons why British stayed with they guns is 1 Treaty limited gun size to 14inch and they stopped developing 15inch and 16inch guns, 2 is problem with rounds they tried different designs with didn't ended good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

only reasons why British stayed with they guns is 1 Treaty limited gun size to 14inch and they stopped developing 15inch and 16inch guns, 2 is problem with rounds they tried different designs with didn't ended good.

so their rounds werent good during WWI and afterwards didnt really improve...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

so their rounds werent good during WWI and afterwards didnt really improve...

they experimented with them like this:

"From inadequate firing trials, a mistaken theory was promulgated by the Director of Naval Ordnance (DNO) that held that a high-velocity, low-weight projectile would have superior armor penetration characteristics at large oblique angles of impact, a conclusion which was the opposite of previous findings. This theory was not substantiated by later trials, but these took place too late to affect the decision to use a lightweight APC projectile for new designs. As a result, these guns proved to be only marginally better in terms of armor penetration than the previous 15"/42 (38.1 cm) Mark I and much less satisfactory than those older guns in terms of accuracy and barrel life. "

but in the end they failed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, arczer25 said:

they experimented with them like this:

"From inadequate firing trials, a mistaken theory was promulgated by the Director of Naval Ordnance (DNO) that held that a high-velocity, low-weight projectile would have superior armor penetration characteristics at large oblique angles of impact, a conclusion which was the opposite of previous findings. This theory was not substantiated by later trials, but these took place too late to affect the decision to use a lightweight APC projectile for new designs. As a result, these guns proved to be only marginally better in terms of armor penetration than the previous 15"/42 (38.1 cm) Mark I and much less satisfactory than those older guns in terms of accuracy and barrel life. "

but in the end they failed...

Glorious Royal Navy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

Glorious Royal Navy...

that's why WoWs don't had UK branches as they need to have at last 1 10 tier, with UK simply lack (maybe if they dig to super uber hidden documents they will find something), despite having massive amount of low tier ships.

cruisers seems to be in better position but i don't have data for UK 8inch, 6inch guns are more average 150-155mm guns, not high performance like Japan 15.5cm/60, Russian 152mm/57 and US 152mm/47.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

only reasons why British stayed with they guns is 1 Treaty limited gun size to 14inch and they stopped developing 15inch and 16inch guns, 2 is problem with rounds they tried different designs with didn't ended good.

 

That and most development was going into Aircraft Carrier development rather than Battleship development. The admiralty at the time underestimated the need to incorporate larger guns and improve battleships further. 

 

You could argue that it was the damage and effectiveness of the Swordfish aircraft that contributed more to the Bismarck's crews decision rather than anything any of the British Battleships had done. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

That and most development was going into Aircraft Carrier development rather than Battleship development. The admiralty at the time underestimated the need to incorporate larger guns and improve battleships further. 

 

You could argue that it was the damage and effectiveness of the Swordfish aircraft that contributed more to the Bismarck's crews decision rather than anything any of the British Battleships had done. 

blocking Bismarck rudder predetermined his fate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bismarck

Citation: C N Trueman "The Bismarck"

The Bismarck, probably Germany’s most famous battleship in World War Two, was sunk on May 27th 1941. The Bismarck had already sunk HMS Hood before being sunk herself. For many, the end of the Hood and Bismarck symbolised the end of the time when battleships were the dominant force in naval warfare, to be replaced by submarines and aircraft carriers and the advantages these ships gave to naval commanders.

Survivors from the ‘Bismarck’ 

The Bismarck displaced over 50,000 tons and 40% of this displacement was armour. Such armour gave the Bismarck many advantages in protection but it did not inhibit her speed – she was capable of 29 knots. Launched in 1939, the Bismarck carried a formidable array of weaponry – 8 x 15 inch guns, 12 x 5.9 inch guns, 16 x 4.1 inch AA guns, 16 x 20mm AA guns and 2 x Arado 96 aircraft. The Bismarck had a crew of 2,200.

In comparison, HMS Hood (built 20 years before Bismarck) was 44,600 tons, had a crew of 1,419 and was faster than the Bismarck with a maximum speed of 32 knots. The Hood had been launched in 1918 and was armed with 8 x 15 inch guns, 12 x 5.5 inch guns, 8 x 4 inch AA guns, 24 x 2 pounder guns and 4 x 21 inch torpedoes. However, the Hood suffered from one major flaw – she did not have the same amount of armour as the Bismarck. The fact that the Hood was faster than the Bismarck by 3 knots was as a result of her lack of sufficient armour. Within two minutes of being hit by the Bismarck, the Hood had broken her back and sunk.

On May 18th, 1941, the Bismarck and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen slipped out of the Baltic port of Gdynia to attack Allied convoys in the Atlantic. Grand Admiral Raeder had already had experience of large warships attacking convoys at sea. Ships such as the Graf Spee, Admiral Scheer (both pocket battleships), Hipper (a cruiser) and Scharnhorst (a battle cruiser) had already been at sea but had found that their power was limited by the fact that they were so far from a dock/port that could carry out repairs if they were needed. Such a difficulty meant that mighty ships such as the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were loathed to take on a convoy if that convoy was protected by any naval ship. In 1940, both the Scharnhorst andGneisenau came across a convoy returning from the UK to Halifax, Canada. However, the convoy was protected by HMS Ramillies and neither German ship could risk being hit by a ship that in other circumstances would easily be outgunned by both German ships.

To overcome the fear of damage at sea, Raeder’s plan was for the German Navy to concentrate a powerful naval force in the Atlantic so that there would not be a concern about convoys and their protection. He intended for the Bismarck, the Prinz Eugen, the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau to operate in the Atlantic fully supported with supply and reconnaissance ships – with such a force, no convoy would be safe regardless of how many naval protection ships they had. However, Raeder’s plan, code-named “Exercise Rhine”, was severely hampered from the start when the Gneisenau was hit by bombs while in Brest and the repairs needed for the Scharnhorst would take much longer than Raeder had anticipated. Regardless of this, Raeder ordered the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen to sail as planned. The ships sailed on May 18th – but on May 20th, they were spotted by the Swedish cruiser ‘Gotland’ off the Swedish coast and the admiral in command of both ships – Lütjens – knew that such information would be received in London before the 20th was out. He was right.

On May 21st, both ships docked at Kors Fjord, near Bergen. The Prinz Eugen needed to refuel. At night both ships left, and not long after this the area around Kors Fjord was bombed by the British.

To get into the Atlantic, both ships had to pass north of Scapa Flow – one of Britain’s largest naval bases. At this base was the battleship ‘King George V’, the newly commissioned (but not battle ready) battleship ‘Prince of Wales’, the battle-cruiser ‘HMS Hood’ and the aircraft carrier ‘HMS Victorious’. With these ships were nine destroyers and four cruisers of the 2nd Cruiser Squadron. At sea in the vicinity were the cruisers ‘Norfolk’, ‘Suffolk’ ‘Manchester’ and ‘Birmingham’. The battleship ‘Rodney’ was also on convoy duty in the Atlantic.

When the new reached the Admiralty that the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen had left Bergen, Admiral Sir John Tovey, Commander-in-Chief Home Fleet, ordered the ‘Hood’ and the ‘Prince of Wales’ to sail accompanied by six destroyers. The fleet left Scapa Flow on May 22nd. All other ships in Scapa Flow and some on the Clyde were put on short notice. On the same day, German reconnaissance for Lütjens, informed him that all the ships that should have been in Scapa Flow were still there.

This was incorrect as the Hood and Prince of Wales had already sailed – though Lütjens thought otherwise. He was also convinced that the weather was on his side as fog obscured many areas to the west of the Norwegian coast and Lütjens became satisfied that he could get into the Atlantic unseen. Such was his confidence that he failed to keep an appointment with a tanker, preferring to steam ahead to the Atlantic. To boost his fleet, Tovey ordered the ‘Victorious’ to sail on the 22nd May and on the following day the battle cruiser HMS Repulse sailed.

At noon on May 23rd, the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen entered the Denmark Strait, between Iceland and Greenland. Here, Lütjens met problems. The fog he had expected to cover his fleet did not materialise and his ships were squeezed between the Greenland ice field that extended 80 miles out from south-east Greenland to the north-west tip of Iceland itself. Lütjens was well aware that this whole area had been mined by the British and he had to select his course well. The Royal Navy also knew that the Germans would be forced to sail through a small area of sea and at 19.22 on May 23rd, the cruiser ‘Suffolk’ spotted both the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen. The ‘Suffolk’ reported her sighting and HMS Norfolk picked this report up. At 20.22, the Norfolk spotted both German ships.

The ‘Suffolk’s report had reached the ‘Hood’ and Admiral Holland, on the ‘Hood’ concluded that there were 300 miles between his ship and the Bismarck. Holland ordered that the ‘Hood’ should steer a course to the exit of the Denmark Strait and the battle cruiser steamed off at 27 knots. At this speed, the ‘Hood’ should have come into contact with the ‘Bismarck’ at 06.00 on May 24th. The ‘King George V’ and ‘Victorious’ also picked up the message but were both 600 miles away and would have been unable to support the ‘Hood’ on the following day at 06.00. The Admiralty remained concerned for the safety of the convoys in the Atlantic as there was always the danger the ‘Bismarck’ might slip away. Therefore the ‘Renown’, ‘Ark Royal’ and ‘Sheffield’ were ordered to sea from Gibraltar to give further protection to the convoys.

The ‘Bismarck’ had darkness on her side and for a couple of hours, the ‘Suffolk’ and ‘Norfolk’ lost touch with the Bismarck. Without their positioning information, the ‘Hood’ could easily have lost contact with the Bismarck. However, by 02.47 on May 24th, the Suffolk had regained contact with the Bismarck. The information sent back by the ‘Suffolk’ led the Hood to believe that she would be just 20 miles from the Bismarck at 05.30 on May 24th. At 05.35, the lookout from the Hood made out the Prinz Eugen and the Bismarck at a distance of 17 miles.

Holland ordered the Hood to turn to the German ships and at 05.45 they were only 22,000 metres apart. At 05.52, the ‘Hood’ opened fire and shortly afterwards was joined by the ‘Prince of Wales’. At 05.54, both the Prinz Eugen and the Bismarck fired their guns primarily against the ‘Hood’.

The Prinz Eugen hit the Hood and set alight some anti-aircraft shells kept on deck. The fire this caused was not particularly dangerous for the ‘Hood’ even though it produced a great deal of smoke. At 06.00 a salvo from the Bismarck hit the Hood. The Bismarck had fired from 17,000 metres and the elevation of her guns meant that the shells that hit the ‘Hood’ had a high trajectory and a steep angle of descent. The Hood had minimal horizontal armour and one of the shells from the Bismarck penetrated the Hood’s deck and exploded in one of her magazines. A massive explosion tore the ‘Hood’ in half. Those who saw the explosion said that the bows of the ‘Hood’ were raised out of the sea before they sank. The ship sank extremely quickly and only three men out of a total crew of 1,419 survived.

After the destruction of the ‘Hood, the Germans turned their fire onto the ‘Prince of Wales’. Her captain, Leach, decided that the best course of action was to turn away under the cover of smoke and, along with the ‘Suffolk’ and ‘Norfolk’ continue to tail the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.

However, the Bismarck had not escaped untouched by the battle. One shell had pierced two oil tanks. The damage it did to the ship was minimal but it did mean that 1000 tons of fuel was no longer available to the Bismarck as the shell had cut off this supply. Other senior officers on the Bismarck advised Lütjens to return to Germany buoyed by the success against the ‘Hood’. This advice was not listened to.

Lütjens decided to split up the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. He had hoped to split up the Royal Navy that was doggedly pursuing him alone. In this he failed. As the Prinz Eugen steamed away, the pursuers targeted only the Bismarck. At this point the battleship King George V was only 200 miles away and closing fast. Accompanying the ‘King George V’ was the carrier ‘Victorious’. At 22.10 on May 24th, nine Swordfishtorpedo-bombers left the ‘Victorious’ to attack the Bismarck. Using directions from the ‘Norfolk’, the planes attacked through the cloud and found themselves attacking an American coast guard ship. By midnight the planes had found the Bismarck and attacked. Eight torpedoes were fired at the Bismarck and one hit home amidships. It did no damage to the ship but it may well have undermined Lütjens’ self-confidence as he announced to the ship’ crew that 27 aircraft had been shot down. He also informed Berlin that it was impossible for him to shake off the Royal Navy and that he was abandoning the task in hand to sail to St Nazaire as his ship was short of fuel.

As the Bismarck sailed, she was tailed by the Suffolk, Norfolk and Prince of Wales. Just after 03.06 on May 25th, the Suffolk lost contact with the Bismarck and it was assumed that she was steaming west into the Atlantic. In fact, the Bismarck was doing the opposite – sailing east for a port in Biscay. At 08.00, Swordfish from the Victorious were sent up to look for the Bismarck but found nothing. The Norfolk and Suffolk also drew a blank. What gave away the Bismarck was the Bismarck itself.

For reasons not known, Lütjens sent Hitler a message about his contact with the Hood which took 30 minutes to send by radio. This message was picked up by the Royal Navy. However, the information sent to Tovey was misleading as he was not in a position to interpret the bearing given to him by the Admiralty. The Admiralty also made another error. It failed to use gnomonic charts for its bearings and the King George V was given the position of the Bismarck but it was 200 miles out. This led Tovey to believe that the Bismarck was trying to return to Germany through the Iceland-Faeroes Gap. Through no fault of his own, Tovey was wrong.

The Admiralty did realise its mistake and informed Tovey that the Bismarck was, in fact, making for the Biscay ports. At 18.10 the King George V and other ships turned to the Biscay ports. Finally, the Royal Navy was given the correct course to follow but the Bismarck had a lead on them of 110 miles. The weather also favoured the Bismarck as it was deteriorating and visibility was reduced as the cloud as low. The Admiralty used Catalina flying boats to search for the Bismarck. On May 27th, the Catalina’s finally spotted the Bismarck. This information was given to the Swordfish crews from the Ark Royal which was steaming up from Gibraltar. They took off at 14.30 in rapidly deteriorating weather.

The lead Swordfish spotted a large ship on its radar and fourteen planes dived through cloud for an attack. Unfortunately, they attacked the ‘Sheffield’ as no-one had told them that the ‘Sheffield’ was in the same area as the Bismarck shadowing the giant German battleship. Luckily no damage was done to the ‘Sheffield’.

The Swordfish returned to the ‘Victorious’ to be re-fuelled and re-armed. By 19.10, they were airborne once again. At 19.40 they spotted the ‘Sheffield’, which gave the crews the direction of the ‘Bismarck’ -12 miles to the south-east. Fifteen planes attacked the ‘Bismarck’ and there were two definite torpedo hits and one probable. One of the torpedoes did considerable damage to the battleship by damaging her starboard propeller, wrecking her steering gear and jamming her rudders. Two observation planes saw the ‘Bismarck’ literally sailing in circles in the immediate aftermath of the attack and at less than 8 knots. The attack had crippled the ‘Bismarck’. The only saving grace for Lütjens was that the night had come and the darkness gave him some hint of cover. However, throughout the night the stricken battleship was harassed by destroyers under the command of Captain Vian.

The destroyers shadowed the ‘Bismarck’ and fed her position back to the ‘Norfolk’. The ‘Norfolk’ was joined by the battleships ‘Rodney’ and the ‘King George V’. On May 27th at 08.47, the ‘Rodney’ opened fire on the ‘Bismarck’. At 08.48, the ‘King George V’ did the same. The ‘Bismarck’ fired back but a salvo from the ‘Rodney’ took out the two forward gun turrets of the ‘Bismarck’. By 10.00 all her main guns had been silenced and her mast had been blown away. By 10.10, all her secondary armaments had been destroyed and the giant ship simply wallowed in the water. At 10.15, Tovey called off his battleships and ordered the ‘Dorsetshire’ to sink the ‘Bismarck’ with torpedoes. Three torpedoes were fired at the ‘Bismarck’ and she sank at 10.40. Out of her crew of 2,200, there were only 115 survivors. Only 2 officers out of 100 survived.

The ‘Prinz Eugen’ returned to Brest on June 1st and all but one of the supply ships sent out with the ‘Bismarck’ and ‘Prinz Eugen’ were sunk. ‘Exercise Rhine’ had been a dismal failure for the Germans as no convoy was attacked and her most feared battleship had been lost. For the British, there was much propaganda to make out of the episode even though the ‘Hood’ had been lost.

 

Interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First Officer Hans Oels ordered the men below decks to abandon ship; he instructed the engine room crews to open the ship's watertight doors and prepare scuttling charges.[123] Gerhard Junack, the chief engineering officer, ordered his men to set the demolition charges with a 9-minute fuse but the intercom system broke down and he sent a messenger to confirm the order to scuttle the ship. The messenger never returned and Junack primed the charges and ordered the crew to abandon the ship.[124] Junack and his comrades heard the demolition charges detonate as they made their way up through the various levels.[125] Oels rushed throughout the ship, ordering men to abandon their posts. After he reached the deck a huge explosion killed him and about a hundred others.[126]

 

The four British ships fired more than 2,800 shells at Bismarck, and scored more than 400 hits, but were unable to sink Bismarck by gunfire. At around 10:20, running low on fuel, Tovey ordered the cruiser Dorsetshire to sink Bismarck with torpedoes and sent his battleships back to port.[127]Dorsetshire fired a pair of torpedoes into Bismarck's starboard side, one of which hit. Dorsetshire then moved around to her port side and fired another torpedo, which also hit. By the time these torpedo attacks took place, the ship was already listing so badly that the deck was partly awash.[125] It appears that the final torpedo may have detonated against Bismarck's port side superstructure, which was by then already underwater.[65] Around 10:35, Bismarck capsized to port and slowly sank by the stern, disappearing from the surface at 10:40.[128] Some survivors reported they saw Captain Lindemann standing at attention at the stem of the ship as she sank.[129]

 

and ballards research confirm that... the torpedoes didnt do anythign... what truman wrote sounds more like the brit equivalent to history channel... somethign they wished... but isnt confirmed by modern research...

 

i quote from my OP

Ballard noted that he found no evidence of the internal implosions that occur when a hull that is not fully flooded sinks. The surrounding water, which has much greater pressure than the air in the hull, would crush the ship. Instead, Ballard points out that the hull is in relatively good condition; he states simply that "Bismarck did not implode."[142] This suggests that Bismarck's compartments were flooded when the ship sank, supporting the scuttling theory.[143] Ballard added "we found a hull that appears whole and relatively undamaged by the descent and impact". They concluded that the direct cause of sinking was scuttling: sabotage of engine-room valves by her crew, as claimed by German survivors

 

and tbh... i take the word of the survivors that DID the scuttlign higher than that of the british that CLAIM to have sunk her while even after 400 Main calibre BB shells the bismarck was still swimming

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RohmMohc said:

First Officer Hans Oels ordered the men below decks to abandon ship; he instructed the engine room crews to open the ship's watertight doors and prepare scuttling charges.[123] Gerhard Junack, the chief engineering officer, ordered his men to set the demolition charges with a 9-minute fuse but the intercom system broke down and he sent a messenger to confirm the order to scuttle the ship. The messenger never returned and Junack primed the charges and ordered the crew to abandon the ship.[124] Junack and his comrades heard the demolition charges detonate as they made their way up through the various levels.[125] Oels rushed throughout the ship, ordering men to abandon their posts. After he reached the deck a huge explosion killed him and about a hundred others.[126]

 

The four British ships fired more than 2,800 shells at Bismarck, and scored more than 400 hits, but were unable to sink Bismarck by gunfire. At around 10:20, running low on fuel, Tovey ordered the cruiser Dorsetshire to sink Bismarck with torpedoes and sent his battleships back to port.[127]Dorsetshire fired a pair of torpedoes into Bismarck's starboard side, one of which hit. Dorsetshire then moved around to her port side and fired another torpedo, which also hit. By the time these torpedo attacks took place, the ship was already listing so badly that the deck was partly awash.[125] It appears that the final torpedo may have detonated against Bismarck's port side superstructure, which was by then already underwater.[65] Around 10:35, Bismarck capsized to port and slowly sank by the stern, disappearing from the surface at 10:40.[128] Some survivors reported they saw Captain Lindemann standing at attention at the stem of the ship as she sank.[129]

 

and ballards research confirm that... the torpedoes didnt do anythign... what truman wrote sounds more like the brit equivalent to history channel... somethign they wished... but isnt confirmed by modern research...

 

i quote from my OP

Ballard noted that he found no evidence of the internal implosions that occur when a hull that is not fully flooded sinks. The surrounding water, which has much greater pressure than the air in the hull, would crush the ship. Instead, Ballard points out that the hull is in relatively good condition; he states simply that "Bismarck did not implode."[142] This suggests that Bismarck's compartments were flooded when the ship sank, supporting the scuttling theory.[143] Ballard added "we found a hull that appears whole and relatively undamaged by the descent and impact". They concluded that the direct cause of sinking was scuttling: sabotage of engine-room valves by her crew, as claimed by German survivors

 

and tbh... i take the word of the survivors that DID the scuttlign higher than that of the british that CLAIM to have sunk her while even after 400 Main calibre BB shells the bismarck was still swimming

By 10.00 all her main guns had been silenced and her mast had been blown away. By 10.10, all her secondary armaments had been destroyed and the giant ship simply wallowed in the water.

 

It was a floating wreck by that time. Indeed the RN 15' guns werent that effective but after such many hits the ship was begining to sink. The captain ordered the ship to be scuttled probably for this:"we chose to destroy our ship" But it didnt matter. Had the scuttelying order not been given, the result would have been the same. It would have just take some more torpedoes. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post Jutland the Lützow was in a similiar condition and was scuttled.. still wanst sunk by the RN... most historians and researchers (afaik) agree that the main reason the Bismarck sunk was scuttling... the rest doestn matter...it doesnt matter "if what or whatever" it went down because of the scuttling... the Bismarck was scuttled because it was shot combat ineffective by the RN... BUT It wasnt SUNK by the RN

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, JohnGR said:

By 10.00 all her main guns had been silenced and her mast had been blown away. By 10.10, all her secondary armaments had been destroyed and the giant ship simply wallowed in the water.

 

It was a floating wreck by that time. Indeed the RN 15' guns werent that effective but after such many hits the ship was begining to sink. The captain ordered the ship to be scuttled probably for this:"we chose to destroy our ship" But it didnt matter. Had the scuttelying order not been given, the result would have been the same. It would have just take some more torpedoes. 

made combat ineffective by =/ sunk by

ship was scuttled. but kill still goes to UK by forcing crew to do that. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RohmMohc said:

Post Jutland the Lützow was in a similiar condition and was scuttled.. still wanst sunk by the RN... most historians and researchers (afaik) agree that the main reason the Bismarck sunk was scuttling... the rest doestn matter...it doesnt matter "if what or whatever" it went down because of the scuttling... the Bismarck was scuttled because it was shot combat ineffective by the RN... BUT It wasnt SUNK by the RN

 

The Bismarck was already sinking when she was scuttled.........her crew only increased the rate at which she met her fate. I do remember seeing one report that said that the Bismarck tried to surrender during the bombardment but it was ignored due to the will of the powers at be to avenge the Hood.

 

Here is one quote I found in a news paper. (unfortunately is from the daily mail but the statement should be somewhat accurate hopefully :dntknw:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiczNbBocHOAhXMWxQKHYuiAogQFggnMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-1391220%2FShould-sunk-Bismarck-Tormented-sailor-reveals-German-sailors-tried-surrender-ship-destroyed-costing-2-000-lives.html&usg=AFQjCNFVCI-QMALath_Rr_ddHu9IWr3qqw&sig2=iPsJeShfpNIZNz6uixZqRg&bvm=bv.129422649,d.bGg

 

One account he came across  was an interview Mr Byers gave  to his son Kevin before he died  in 2004 aged 86.

Mr Byers, a gunnery officer on Rodney, saw the battle unfold through binoculars at a distance of two miles. The Rodney had closed to what was point-blank range in gunnery terms because the Bismarck was no longer firing back.

Mr Byers said: ‘Very early on men started jumping over board. They couldn’t stand the heat. One particular fella on top of B turret was waving his arms in semaphore.

‘I saw this and I told the gunnery officer, Lieutenant Commander Crawford. He said, “I don’t want to know about any signal now”. She then flew a black flag…but he (Crawford) wasn’t having any of it.

‘Then she started blinking with her Morse lamps on the yard arm and he (Crawford) said “Don’t report anything more like that”.’


 
1 hour ago, Smin1080p said:

 

That and most development was going into Aircraft Carrier development rather than Battleship development. The admiralty at the time underestimated the need to incorporate larger guns and improve battleships further. 

 

You could argue that it was the damage and effectiveness of the Swordfish aircraft that contributed more to the Bismarck's crews decision rather than anything any of the British Battleships had done. 

 

Indeed the admiralty were quite interesting in the use of aircraft and carriers. However the British government had the final say on what the navy did and after the end of WWI a 10 year plan was introduced for the Navy, Army and Air force that stated that after 10 years all 3 branches should be in a state to fight a war however funding was limited and at the end of the 10 years the clock was reset due to no war being in sight and it stayed that way until the mid 1930's while this was good news for the tax payer ect it was bad news for the navy and for Britain's ship builders most of which had either amalgamated with other company's, gone out of business or had trimmed off as much as they could in order to survive and that was only in the first 10 years. Ultimately this meant that by the mid 1930's Britain's ship building industry could not churn out new ships as quick as it used to. The Naval treaty's of the 1920's and 1930's also did not help matters they may have prevented a possible Anglo-american war/Naval arms race but they dealt another blow to Britain's ship building and it also effected Britain's armament industry's due to the gun size limits because what's the point of developing larger guns if you are not allowed to use them. 

 

The book "The Royal Navy A History Since 1900" by Duncan Redford is worth a read it has a good bit on this subject.

Edited by Ghost_Rider12
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ghost_Rider12 said:

 

The Bismarck was already sinking when she was scuttled.........her crew only increased the rate at which she met her fate. I do remember seeing one report that said that the Bismarck tried to surrender during the bombardment but it was ignored due to the will of the powers at be to avenge the Hood.

 

 

I never really understood the discussion. Can someone explain to me why this even is a thing?

 

The whole thing always seemed EXTREMELY childish to me. Like kindergarten niveau. "The british didn't sink the Bismarck...it was scuttled, nana na na naa!"

 

I mean what is the point of the whole discussion? What does it matter if the crew actually helped sink the ship? At this point it was only a matter of time anyhow. I mean it is not like a "Graf Spee" kind of deal were a basically almost functional ship was sunk in a hopeless situation and the Captain commited suicide on the bridge.

 

The Bismarck was a wreck and the whole discussion about who sunk it extremely childish and dependent on a technicallity. For all intents and purposes if you damage a ship enough so it has to be sunk.......you sunk the ship imho.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, arczer25 said:

made combat ineffective by =/ sunk by

ship was scuttled. but kill still goes to UK by forcing crew to do that. 

Primary armament was disabled. Secondary armament was destroyed. It had lost thousands tons of fuel. A propeller was damaged. Steering mechanism was off. Whole deck was heavily damaged. Water started enetring ship compartments. Bismark was a floating wreck. Rodney and king george V effectively destroyed its fighting capabilities while swordfish planes provided the necessary critical hits that sealed its fate. even if the germans didnt scuttled the ship the result would remain the same. If we use the word''sunk'' strictly, yes, bismark was sunk by its crew. But if we want to talk realisticaly it was the RN that sunk the Bismark. 
Moments before sinking:
article-1391220-003F3C1200000258-315_468x286.jpg

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JohnGR said:

Primary armament was disabled. Secondary armament was destroyed. It had lost thousands tons of fuel. A propeller was damaged. Steering mechanism was off. Whole deck was heavily damaged. Water started enetring ship compartments. Bismark was a floating wreck. Rodney and king george V effectively destroyed its fighting capabilities while swordfish planes provided the necessary critical hits that sealed its fate. even if the germans didnt scuttled the ship the result would remain the same. If we use the word''sunk'' strictly, yes, bismark was sunk by its crew. But if we want to talk realisticaly it was the RN that sunk the Bismark. 
Moments before sinking:
article-1391220-003F3C1200000258-315_468x286.jpg

and what im saying: "kill still goes to UK"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bombastikus said:

 

I never really understood the discussion. Can someone explain to me why this even is a thing?

 

The whole thing always seemed EXTREMELY childish to me. Like kindergarten niveau. "The british didn't sink the Bismarck...it was scuttled, nana na na naa!"

 

I mean what is the point of the whole discussion? What does it matter if the crew actually helped sink the ship? At this point it was only a matter of time anyhow. I mean it is not like a "Graf Spee" kind of deal were a basically almost functional ship was sunk in a hopeless situation and the Captain commited suicide on the bridge.

 

The Bismarck was a wreck and the whole discussion about who sunk it extremely childish and dependent on a technicallity. For all intents and purposes if you damage a ship enough so it has to be sunk.......you sunk the ship imho.

 

Indeed the fact is the Bismarck sunk . Some people however refuse to believe that the RN dealt the fatal blows that caused her to start to sink it is well documented that she was already sinking slowly when she was scuttled all her crew did was to speed up the rate at which she was sinking. As for why they decided to scuttle her I don't know maybe they thought the RN would try to capture her but if that was the case they would not have pounded her into a burning wreck. 

 

The scuttling of the Graf spee is an interesting one. Captain Langsdorff believing that a large fleet of warships awaited him (when in reality all that was there to stop him was 3 cruisers) chose to save his crew and scuttle the ship instead of fighting a battle he would not have won.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.