How did the Bismarck really sink?

Well it seem that my post has upset everyone since some complaints are doubled if i do not answer your complaints to your satisfaction ask again and i will do what i can to respond you your quires.

1. it is obvious that you have an axe to grind about Germany losing this battle (and judging by your comment in the Prinz Eugen thread in the What If? section with regards to bias in American history writing, it isn't only the British you have a grudge against) and I can never understand why people still wish that Germany had of won battles they didn't. Do you wish that Germany had of won the war with all that would of entailed?


nope i think the Americans also exaggerate the truth, as for supporting Hitlers ideologies. Never happen just because i think that lead by an intelligent leader Germany should have won the war, that Hitlers Stupidity on several occasion cost valuable resources and lives. NOT to mention the final solution (my Belief in the value of human life prevents me from seeing any unnecessary loss of life or inhumane treatment as a good thing)


2.Considering that HMS Rodney had 16" guns (all 9 of them) I'd say that she had more than enough 'in her locker' to damage the Bismarck, let alone the 10 14" guns of HMS KG V. Have you actually seen the images of the Bismarck and her damage sitting on the seabed?


Well isn't that just fancy, 16 inch you say well well well well. When battles between ship are discussed i find that people revolve around the size of the guns ad thickness of the armor. I also find that they fail to understand that not everything is black and white as they like to think things are, for instants the HMS Rodney did indeed have 16 inch gun but 1, her barrels are shorter giving her a lower velocity 2, her barrels were made of lower quality metals meaning the charges (propellant for shells) had to be smaller making the shells velocity slower (i don't need to point out why the velocity is important do I )
3, shell technology was not as good as German shells giving them an armor penetration rating higher then British counterparts
4, quality of armor the more advance armor of the Bismarck was superior (in quality and technology )
5, British designs for there ships was a little whacked out they went for speed at the cost of armor and rate of fire at the expense of crew safety ( where i come from that not so good for ships or crews)

my understanding of the battle was after all the pounding by several ships of the line, was still floating so they moved in to in some cases less then a quarter mile for there target and continued to fire. Now i admit that the superstructure of the Bismarck was treated to a level of bombardment never seen before, but that has no Bering on the ship capacity to survive. it dose however make her look bad on poor quality underwater photos and the computer generated images people like to look at.


Whether Bismark was scuttled or abandoned and sank on her own; she sank. Also, given the amount of visible damage Bismark would have sunk from progressive flooding in a matter of a day or so in any case. To that end I would hold up the example of the Kirishima also sunk in similar circumstances. In the later's case it was clearly progressive flooding that was the cause.
Given Bismark's newer condition, much wider beam and, better internal subdivision such flooding would have taken longer to occur; that's all. The British finished the Bismark. Of that there is no argument. Whether her crew sank her or she would have sunk in another day or so on her own is a moot and irrelevant argument.


examples of of lesser ship sinking are not really all that accurate i could tell you about the SMS Seydlitz a ship that suffered 21 major hits, had all her primary turrets destroyed. 5000 tons of water flooded, the ship it made it back to Germany. ( see for yourself WSW 1:700th SMS Seydlitz)

Here's a brief comment taken from the same source that Jeff mentioned above:
Bismarck's Final Battle - Part 3


nice pictures you fail to take into account that along the water line that after the anti torpedo blisters and the primary armor belt that the Bismarck has 2 additional levels of armor.

http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccion6.gif
http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccion7.gif

this one is not as good but what the heck

http://www.kbismarck.com/proteccion.gif



Didn't the HMS Rodney peeper the superstructure, while KGV fired from a longer range so as to penetrate through the deck? In which case it's not at all surprising that there are few shell hit's through the armored belt. Either way I find it highly suspect that no torpedoes did any damage other than slight dents. Torpedoes sank the Yamato and Musashi, who both had thicker armor.



welded armor, isn't awesome unfortunately Yamato and Musashi didn't have welded armor there armor was riveted. Making it weaker along the seems, they also had lesser quality materials in her armor plating then the Tirpiz class did. top it off the Yamato during one of her missions was struck on the deck near her forward turrets a 500 LB bomb it penetrated and caused flooding, during the Brits continuous attacks on the Tirpiz they discovered that 500 lb bombs were unable to penetrate her deck armor ( the guy had a cool modal of the Tirpiz and place a to scale explosive and set it off, guess what happened.............................NOTHING HAPPENED
proably why they used tallboy bunker busters on her to sink her 6 tons each took 3 hits to finish her off )


let me know if i missed your beef i'll get it on my next post unlike some people here i like to be challenged on my knowledge of ww2 it make me work to find the truth not the standard BS passed on as truth. IF i were to believe everything i was told, i would have to believe the ww2 vet who told me that the Bismarck was sunk 1 on 1 by the ( no word of a lie ) light cruiser HMS Hood and he wasn't the only person with the same diluted story.

 

Oh boy Space Monkey...
1. No German armor was not superior to British armor especially face-hardened armor but in Class B armor the US & UK's was clearly superior to the Germans.

2. Rodney's shells even if lower in MV still weigh far more something like 2200+ lbs to Bismarck's 1700+ lb. shells. A heavier shell with a lower MV may just be more powerful then a lighter shell with a much higher MV .the heavier shell is almost suredly a better deck penetrator.

3. What is your source for German shells being better? They sure seemed to have their fair share of duds. British shells were better at high obliquities to boot.

4. The Bismarck's armor layout was archaic to be rather charitable at that. Her turret armor was vulnerable to any BB size gun at any range.

5. I wonder just how well Bismarck's TDS would hold up to a torpedo like what hit North Carolina or what was used against Yamato & Musashi?

Oh and have you ever thought that the very close range flat trajectory gunfire might have been one reason Bismarck did so well in her final battle? A longer range battle may have seen far more diving hits along with far more belt hits.

 

There is a theory that the scuttling actually slowed down the sinking. The theory is that the weight of the water being let into the bottom of the ship by the scuttling charges stopped the ship from capsizing

The claim, is that the main armour belt wasn't penetrated (which is not true, a small number of shell are known to have penetrated) but the main armour belt on the Bismarck was only just above the water-line. The evidence is that the majority of the super-structure above that was completely smashed, casualties amongst the crew was heavy even before they abandoned ship.

The majority of crew wouldn't need to know about the scuttling order, because they had already been given their orders...Abandon ship.
It is estimated that around 1,000 men made it into the water before she sank, but fate played a cruel trick on them.
As a couple of RN ships stopped to pick up survivors a look-out on one of them reported seeing a plume of smoke, possibly from the diesel engine of a surfaced U-boat. The threat of a U-boat in the area forced the RN ships to break off from attempting to pick up the survivors, leaving hundreds of men in the freezing cold water.


Not sure what you mean by

The damage around the rudder was so bad, they had given up attempting to repair it hours before. In fact the damage to the stern was so bad that when the Bismarck sank it broke off from the rest of the ship.

Its highly likely due to the chaos on the upper decks that the officer who ordered the scuttling charges to be set had little idea if the Bismarck was about to sink or not due to the damage caused by the British. He was merely ensuring that after the crew had abandoned ship the British would not have enough time to board the ship for what ever reason before she sank

There is no evidence the British even gave a passing thought to capturing the Bismarck and towing her back to Britain. In fact the British Admiral in charge ordered the main battlefleet to break off the attack and set course for base due to low fuel, and for a cruiser with some torpedoes left to finish her off
The difficulties of towing her back would have been immense, and its not like the British were short of battleships.

[/QUOTE]

 

Sinking with a heavy loss of life, and failling to hit the enemy with even a single shell in return...is doing well ???????

 

Well I meant that it's often brought up how much it took to sink her but IMHO alot of ships could have took all that damage above waterline and stayed afloat for quite some time.

 

you really need to stop referring to the Bismarck while describing the flaws of the HMS Hood, now i will admit that the design of the Bismarck is unconventional compared to her less counter parts.

 

1.ok if the the armor was bad explain to me how the tirpiz the flagship of the class survived the mini sub bomb disaster.

2. velocity x mass = energy of impact, makes bigger hole.

http://www.kbismarck.com/ i would like you to visit this site it been educational for me maybe it will help lift the fog of post war BS that impairs your jugment

3.i would answer that but i don't think you capable understanding that there are several reasons for a shell not to detonate with out them being duds.

4.I think it was a Iowa class that was hit by an Japaneses torpedo bomber, the funny part was when they pointed out that it only put a 30 foot gash it the ship were it hit.

now the bismarck was attacked after sinking the hood buy a destroyer squadron and was hit by a torpedo, my understanding from reading the ship reports and survivor accounts that the torpedo did not but dent the hull and the kill one unlucky watch office by slamming him against one f the 10.5 cm aa emplacements.

one might wonder of the 1. quality of armor 2. point out that no matter how good material is, it only as good as weakest point and for American and British ships that point is the RIVETS

besides you are actually not really take consideration 2 important things 1, alot of the British ships were built it time between ww1 and ww2 most having be stated in the 1920's, this means the technology that made those ships was limited to what we knew about ships in 1920.
The Bismarck was started in 1936 almost 20 year later, anyone with a brain would realize that something 16 years newer would have new technologies and new design qualities that would be better then older ones.

5.actually when the Russians used the Graf Zeppelin for target practice after the war they hit her with several torpedoes and the the torpedo blisters did the save the ship for 75% of the hits

you really need to stop referring to the Bismarck while describing the flaws of the HMS Hood, now i will admit that the design of the Bismarck is unconventional compared to her less counter parts.

 

I have even heard it postulated that the scuttling charges may have slowed down her sinking allowing her to sink on an even keep rather than capsising earlier.

 

But the Bismarck did roll, and its turrets "fall out" and land separated from the hull. If the scuttling was keeping it on an "even keel", this should NOT be the case.

 

Yes but she didn't really start to roll until her decks were almost awash from what I recall reading. Had the scuttling charges not lowered her center of gravity she may have rolled sooner. Not saying there's a really strong case for it but not much of a case against it either.

 

my understanding of BB's is that they all role when they die must be quark in there design

 

1. You don't think alot of other ships couldn't have survived what Tirpitz did?
2. I don't have BS that impairs my judgement. That website is very biased for the Bismarck.
3. No I know there are alot of reasons why shells may fail . You are the one that thinks Bismarck had super shells.
4.No it was North Carolina not Iowa and it was a sub torpedo not an aerial torpedo by as torpedo bomber furthermore it hit at the narrowest part of North Carolina's TDS. That torpedo that hit North Carolina was equal to over 960 lbs. of TNT just what were the torpedoes that hit Bismarck rated at? No it didn't just dent Bismarck's hull read the link you provided to the article by Nathan Okun.
5. No I will refer to Bismarck's flaws furthermore the UK's KGV's were far more advanced in design to the Bismrck. Oh one other question I just wonder what all those KGV's, South Dakota's and North Carolina's could have had if their designers cheated building them at 35,000 tons versus the 42,000 tons of Bismarck.

 

Space Monkey,
You brought up that Bismarck website .I once debated a gentleman there/from there who criticised the Iowa for only having 10,255 tons of armor on a 45,000 ton design however I notified him that his figure didn't include over 8,000 tons of Class B & STS which made up the armor deck,the logitudal bulkheads,splinter deck & 3rd deck . When that gentleman used Bismarck's figures everything was included in his arlmor wieght figure while "his" Iowa figures excluded turret,bulkhead and deck armor for that ship.

 

The bottom links shows some nice Video of the Bismarck.

YouTube - Sink the Bismarck


Bismarck Video - Google Videos#

YouTube - Battleship Bismarck

As you can see by the posts many versions on what really Happened.

 

I've always believed the Bismarck was scuttled. Yes, she was in seriously sad shape from the RN fire, but as survivors point out, not at the point of sinking. The RN will refute the scuttling because it essentially takes their victory away from them.

It reminds me of the debate over who shot down Von Richthofen. The RAF to this day maintains it was Roy Brown, when even as far back as 1968 Ryan & Carisella had a pretty airtight case that is was Aussie ground gunner Popkin that fired the fatal shot.

It's the same mindset.

 

It was defending itself, it lost the defense. It had holes in the hull during battle (no matter who put them there), bouyancy was compromised, it sank. The German Navy had a long history of scuttling its ships rather than surrendering them, big deal.

The Biz went down, during combat, unable to do more than SINK. Game over.

 

The RN will refute the scuttling because it essentially takes their victory away from them.

How so? I assume you're not suggesting that Captain Lindemanns or his crew were the sort of cowards who would sink their own ship before it was in the last extremity. They were at the point where, a hundred years earlier, they would have struck their colors, and anyone knows that's a victory.

 

You seem to be a real "fan" of the Biz, so I'll ignore all the other stuff you use to support your position since it appears you "cherry-pick" data to support it, such as armor displacement and such. Many other persons (authors and naval authorities), as well as on-line sites seeem to follow a different tack.

On completion, the Bismarck spent eight months on trials and working up before being declared operationally ready. The Bismarck left port in company with the Prinz Eugen on 23 April 1941, for commerce raiding, however the Prinz Eugen was damaged by a magnetic mine and the departure was delayed until 18/19 May. They arrived off the Norwegian town of Bergen on 21 May, where the Prinz Eugen refuelled, then moved off towards the Atlantic.

In the evening of 23 May the ships were contacted by British cruisers, and in the early morning of 24 May the battleship Prince of Wales and the battle cruiser Hood intercepted them. The Bismarck destroyed the Hood with her fourth salvo, then shifted fire to the Prince of Wales, damaging her and forcing her to withdraw.

The Bismarck had not escaped unscathed, however, being hit three times by the Prince of Wales. These hits caused flooding forward (over 1000 tonnes of water came on board), a fuel leak, contamination of some fuel by sea water, damage to pumps and pipes further reducing available fuel, and in addition the forward flooding caused the maximum speed to be reduced to 28 kts. It was decided to return to port in France, leaving the Prinz Eugen to continue the commerce raiding sortie alone. At this stage she was still being shadowed by British forces.
(the Prinz Eugen's flawed propulsion system halted that attempt as well)

Near midnight on 24 May the Bismarck was attacked by torpedo bombers and fighters, scoring one hit. The torpedo was set to run at 31 ft, but ran on the surface and struck the armoured belt. Nevertheless, this action exacerbated the damage caused earlier and the port number two boiler room flooded, raising fears of salt water contaminating the boiler feed water and necessitating a complete purge of the system. Shortly after the attack the Bismarck slipped her shadowers and headed for France. (this isn't the minor torpedo harm you relate in your post is it!)


Goto:


WW2Ships.com: Bismarck Class Battleships

When you ("spaced_monkey") have have published and respected work in the field like T.A.Gardner and Richard Worth, I'll (perhaps) consider to your opinions with a less jaundiced eye.

 

redcoat

Not sure what you mean by

Hello redcoat,

thanks for your info in regards to my above post.
A friend of mine (Bismarck admirer) had told me that he (I can't exactly recall) read or saw a TV report in wich it was stated that the rudder had actually been repaired - but somehow the captain did not receive that information.

Regards
Kruska

 

I believe that the underwater video of the last mission to its grave showed the rudder damage was still obvious and had fouled one screw.