Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 »

first of all
i must say the things larua or watever hsi name was, were totally wrong
i don't think that US navy had to do ANYTHING with the Bismarck
i still agree that british 'destroyed' the Bismarck, but the reason why they wanted it SUNK was becuase of the prestige
not because the Roayal NAvy had better technology.
That's total BS!

To the actaul question: sank or scuttled
i agree with most of the post send earlier.
The Royal Navy destroyed the Bismarck (not very hard with a majority), BUT they didn't sink that.
U might laugh, but we Germans would take that VERY serious.
Of course the Bismarck would have sank a few hours later, BUT it didn't because her own sailors scutttled it.
That's just becuase of the prestige.
The Bismarck did NOT get SUNK by the Royal Navy.
That's important. (hehe kkk)
The precious theoy that the last torpedo from the HMS Dorsetshire had sunk the Bismarck, the movie by James Cameron proved wrong.
Therefore the only reason for the SINKING of the Bismarck is scuttling.

miro
iankw
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Rotherham, England

Post by iankw »

And this is important for why exactly?
User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 »

it's simply pride or honor...
watever it is.
it's just a small detail, but it shows that the ROYAL NAVY did NOT sink the BISMARCK
u might not understand that, but if there would be a similar situation with a British ship, you would most probably say the same...

miro
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

I agree totally with miro777. Let´s have this right, at least.
Best regards.
User avatar
_Derfflinger_
Supporter
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:01 pm
Location: Missouri, USA

Post by _Derfflinger_ »

Actually, and I'm drawing a very fine line here, can it be said that the Royal Navy sank any of the ten major KM ships in WW2 via surface action, without the cooperation of the German crew scuttling their ship?

Let's see ...

Tirpitz - Sunk by RAF air attack

Bismarck - Sunk (scuttled) by her crew. Certainly the RN thoroughly wrecked the Bismarck in May, 1941, and ultimately would have sunk her by gunfire or torpedos

Scharnhorst - Sunk (scuttled) by her crew. Certainly the RN thoroughly wrecked the Scharnhorst in December, 1943, and ultimately would have sunk her by gunfire or torpedos

Gneisenau - Heavily damaged by RAF air attack, sunk (scuttled) by the KM as a block ship

Admiral Graf Spee - Sunk (scuttled) by her crew, 1939

Admiral Hipper - Put out of action by RAF air attack. A wreck ar war's end

Luetzow - Put out of action by RAF air attack. A wreck at war's end

Prinz Eugen - Survived the war

Bluecher - Sunk by Norwegian land forces, April, 1940

Admiral Hipper - Put out of action by RAF air attack. A wreck at war's end.

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

Sinking KM ships

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Ciao Derf and all,

your list is almost perfect, but some corrections are needed :

1) I do not think any ship was going to be sunk with gunfire only.
This was communicated by Adm Tovey about the Bismarck very clearly.
Same for the Scharnhorst.

2) Scharnhorst was sunk by several torpedoes, to be precise one caused the 11 inch ( 280 mm ) magazine explosion of turret B-Bruno, that accellerated the sinking process on going as opened the bow of the battlecruiser which went down fast by the starboard/bow.
British ships were still attacking her with other torpedoes, but Scharnhorst was no more because of the fast sinking process described above.

3) Blucher sunk by Norwegian torpedoes ( 2 of them ).

Torpedoes were the real danger for KM warships, almost all of them ( not the 'Admiral ' named ones :lol: ) did receive torpedoes.

This is not a joke, juts a curiosity :

Never torpedoed

Admiral Hipper
Admiral Scheer
Admiral Graf Spee
Tirpitz ( which as everybody knows was the WW1 Gross Admiral of Kaiserliche Marine ).

Torpedoed

Bismarck
Scharnhorst
Gneisenau
Prinz Eugen
Blucher
Lutzow/Deutschland

so if we have to learn by the history, better to name a ship with a sea famous name like an Admiral rather than with an Army General name or a politician, ... they are unlucky at sea, .. while an Admiral apparently knows how to avoid been torpedoed, ..... :lol: :lol:

Ciao Antonio :D
User avatar
miro777
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:13 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by miro777 »

hey all

haha that was really an interesting fact,
the 'Admirals"

hey just one question:
when did the Gneisenau got torpedoed?

i only know of one or several mine hits during the Channel Dash....

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

Gneisenau

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Ciao Miro and all,

Gneisenau torpedoed by British submarine HMS Clyde near Trondheim ( Norway ) on June 20, 1940.

Torpedo on the bow,..huge damages and a big hole opened from one side to the other, a boat can sail in there,...

viewtopic.php?t=451

http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/3411.html

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/chalcraft/sm/clyde1940.html

Ciao Antonio :D
dootch
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:04 pm
Location: columbus usa

Post by dootch »

sunk
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Scuttled!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Post by Bgile »

This is so silly!

I supposed the Germans could have saved lots of lives by scuttling Bismarck right after the battle with Hood.

And the Japanese could have scuttled the Yamato right after she left the yards - then the Americans could never have claimed to have sunk her!

This is important, they would say. It saved face!
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Scuttled or sunk

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Ciao all,

Who has not served into the army can not fully understand how important it is for the crew and mostly for the Officers of a ship or any weapon in war, to fight till the end and die with honor.

It is a fundamental concept for an Officer in war, in that situation is even more important that the end of your life.

That is why, most likely, Bismarck was prepared to be scuttled the day before as the ship was unmanouvreable ( no way at all the British could take over the ship from German hands at sea ), than as soon as the ship did her duty ( fight with honor and dignity showing no fear ) than the ship was scuttled as soon as she was not anymore in condition to defend herself and avoid to run the risk to be taken over as for the previous point explained.

It is such a simple concept...........

Of course the British demolished her and were going sooner or later to sink her anyway with more torpedoes, no doubts at all, Bismarck was not going to see an harbour again after she took the Torpedo from the Swordfish and everybody knew it on both sides.

So the British really got the ship and defined her final destiny, no doubts, even if they wanted to blow her off with gunfire.

The German's only could show that the ship was a very good weapon designed as state of the art and was not so easy to be sunk ( not a all with guns only anyway as Adm Tovey did realize too ), and as a supreme demonstration of proudness, they did accellerate the sinking process ( to happen anyway ) scuttling the ship to avoid been taken over and subtract her to that risk.

From all sides they could have saved thousands of young lifes, at sea, in the air and on the ground, but that is the war.

Hood did her duty, Bismarck did her duty, Yamato did her duty as well,... do not forget that without this concept of proudness till the extreme demonstration, .. we were probably not going to be here discussing about those myth's.


Who cares about Duilio, Anson, North Carolina, Dunkerque, etc etc .... all beautiful ships,.. for sure, .. but not myth's.

Ciao Antonio :D
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Antonio Bonomi:
Hood did her duty, Bismarck did her duty, Yamato did her duty as well,... do not forget that without this concept of proudness till the extreme demonstration, .. we were probably not going to be here discussing about those myth's.


Who cares about Duilio, Anson, North Carolina, Dunkerque, etc etc .... all beautiful ships,.. for sure, .. but not myth's.
Nobody could have put it better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Dolobran38
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:04 pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Scuttling ships (Bismarck in particular but others in genera

Post by Dolobran38 »

Hi all. New to the site and my first post.
I have just recently watched the Cameron programme about Bismarck and at one point one of the German sailors mentioned that the sea cocks were opened to scuttle the ship. I don't want to get into a long discussion about whether Bismarck was sunk or scuttled but are/were naval ships really fitted with sea-cocks, sea-valves? Realistically the last thing wanted in any ship is an opening to the sea. The same question would apply to the Grand Fleet at Scapa. I could possibly see a need if they were used to counter-flood but realistically once they're opened they cannot really be shut (unless the control handle is remotely operated, i.e. on a very long column above the valve).
Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Scuttling ships (Bismarck in particular but others in ge

Post by Bgile »

Dolobran38 wrote:Hi all. New to the site and my first post.
I have just recently watched the Cameron programme about Bismarck and at one point one of the German sailors mentioned that the sea cocks were opened to scuttle the ship. I don't want to get into a long discussion about whether Bismarck was sunk or scuttled but are/were naval ships really fitted with sea-cocks, sea-valves? Realistically the last thing wanted in any ship is an opening to the sea. The same question would apply to the Grand Fleet at Scapa. I could possibly see a need if they were used to counter-flood but realistically once they're opened they cannot really be shut (unless the control handle is remotely operated, i.e. on a very long column above the valve).
There are openings to the sea into the engine room. Seawater is used as part of propulsion cooling. Usually in scuttling part of the process is to set explosives on those pipes, letting water flow from the sea into the engineering spaces. Additionally, watertight doors are left open so the flooding can spread easily. There are pump discharges into these spaces as well, so they can be flooded to counter flooding elsewhere in the ship. Yamato flooded several engine rooms in her last battle trying to retain stability.

The funny thing is, I'm not aware of any provision in US ships for scuttling. I'm sure enginuity could prevail, but to my knowledge there weren't special boxes containing scuttling charges in certain spaces like apparently existed on German ships.
Post Reply