Bismarck: Scuttled or Sunk?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

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

Post by Tiornu »

I'm reminded of the beer commercial from years passed.
"Tastes great!"
"Less filling!"
No one has yet explained why it has to be scuttled OR sunk.
Steve McLaughlin recently sent me the following quote from a microfilm copy of the Beatty Papers:

TIME NEEDED TO SINK A SHIP OF THE "QUEEN ELIZABETH" CLASS.
(1). It is estimated that with all scuttles open, by opening the flooding valves to magazines, shell rooms and trimming tanks and the doors of the submerged torpedo tubes, a ship of the "QUEEN ELIZABETH" class could be sunk to the level of the main deck scuttles in less than 25 minutes; she would then sink outright.
(2). If the manhole doors of the condensers were removed and the inlets or discharges opened, the rate would be much accelerated to about 10 to 15 minutes. The ship would then certainly list; this would increase the rate of sinking.
With a little organisation and 16 to 20 hands:--
(1), could be carried out in less than five minutes;
(2), could be prepared in half an hour, at most; allow five minutes for opening the sea valves.
24/6/19.

Note the date, and you may figure out what prompted the RN to focus on this matter.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Ship myth's

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Ciao Karl and all,

@ Karl,

Thanks ! :wink:

@ all,

Bismarck was '' prepared '' with explosive scuttling charges the night before the last battle according to a Bismarck survivor Josef Statz that saw them with his eyes.

It is written also on his personal book ' Schlachtschiff Bismarck ' if I recall correctly.

Some other survivors reported this as well.

Ciao Antonio :D
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Post by RF »

Heinz Dziurowitz wrote:My father served on the Prinz Eugen during this time. He passed away in 1985 and at the time I had little interest in really asking a lot of questions about the subject. He did say that the Bismarck wasn't anything special except for the fact it had plenty of fire power. As far as the Bismarck being scuttled he never mentioned anything about it, and was not overly impressed with it.
There is the point here that none of the crew of PE would be told much about the end of Bismarck, particulary as PE was not involved in the final action.

The comment about Bismarck not being ''anything special'' is curious - is it a post war view or an atitude from inter-ship rivalry from 1941?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Post by paulcadogan »

Happy New Year to all...

Here I am spending new year's eve in the Bismarck forum! (Maybe I should get a life... :think: )

But I can't resist putting in a word... I believe reason behind the whole scuttling argument is to underline the myth of the "unsinkable" Bismarck. The British could not get her to sink and she only did so because her crew scuttled her...

Well there is no doubt she was an extremely tough, well built ship and absorbed an extreme pounding but.... We all know the limitations placed on the British assault - KGV & Rodney low on fuel, closing to very short ranges to secure maximum hits in the shortest possible time resulting in flat shell trajectory. How Bismarck would have stood up to 16-inch shells plunging into her from longer ranges is a matter of conjecture. How she would have stood up to several more torpedo hits is a matter of conjecture too (didn't Scharnhorst take about 11 before sinking?).

But as had been said repeatedly, does it really matter?? The Bismarck and her crew endured a harrowing, painful ordeal starting with the effect of the hits in the Denmark Strait and culminating in the ferocious assault on 27th May. They put up a tremendous fight and scuttling the ship to hasten an end to the torment should not be turned into a "superiority contest". It was part of their fight!

But the British victory in the whole episode is borne out by the inescapable fact that because of the damage sustained, the great battleship ended up 15,000 feet down at the bottom of the Altantic instead of disrupting the Atlantic convoy lifeline...

The Bismarck's triumph is that her performance throughout - from her devastating gunnery in the Denmark Strait to her defiance at the end - has given her an unrivalled place in Naval History.

Paul
User avatar
Gary
Senior Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Northumberland

Post by Gary »

The comment about Bismarck not being ''anything special'' is curious - is it a post war view or an atitude from inter-ship rivalry from 1941?
My gut feeling is that it is a post-war view.
If you compare Bismarck to NC, SoDak, Iowa or Yamato..........suddenly she isnt quite so mighty.
God created the world in 6 days.........and on the 7th day he built the Scharnhorst
WGarzke
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:12 am
Location: Montclair, Virginia, USA

Re: Scuttling

Post by WGarzke »

I have read some of the discussion concerning scuttling and must say that my research and calculations indicated that both the Germans and the British sank the Bismarck. It is often a question that Mr. Dulin and I have answered with that reply.

James Cameron was correct in has assessment of what happened. Bismarck was seriously damaged and would have eventually sunk from progressive flooding. However, the shell damage in the final action resulted in damage to the superstructure and ordnance. I met with James Cameron and went over his photography of the wreck in detail. There were only four penetrations of the citadel and main side belts. Considering the number of 356-mm and 406-mm shells fired, this is a very low probability of hits. So what caused the vessel to sink? The torpedo hits some 7-10 were responsible, but the damage caused by two shell hits by Prince of Wales were very significant. They caused over 2,000 tonnes of flooding and the measures to correct trim and list added more water in the ship.

For anyone to say that the British were solely responsible for sinking Bismarck is just not correct. They certainly damaged the ship and caused a significant amount of flooding. However, the nature of the damage to the topsides and the fact that both Captain Lindemann and Admiral Lutjens were dead by 0920 on the morning of 27 May led the Executive Officer Hans Oels to order scuttling measures to commence from 0945 on until he too was killed by one of the four penetrations of the belt armor by a 356-mm shell from King George V. I spent 11 years debriefing one of the survivors from Damage Control Central and have the flooding of spaces enumerated in detail at the time the ship sank.

My conclusions have angered some British officers, but Admiral Wildish who was the damage control officer aboard Prince of Wales in that action has agreed with me that the ship was probably scuttled to prevent boarding.

William H. Garzke, Jr.
William H. Garzke, Jr.
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 »

WGarzke:
I met with James Cameron and went over his photography of the wreck in detail. There were only four penetrations of the citadel and main side belts. Considering the number of 356-mm and 406-mm shells fired, this is a very low probability of hits.
The hypothetical scenario that have been under attack so many times in this forum regards that a fully operational Bismarck could have handled the situation of May 27th, 1941, at least in order to retreat to fight another day with damage to the British ships. :o
My conclusions have angered some British officers, but Admiral Wildish who was the damage control officer aboard Prince of Wales in that action has agreed with me that the ship was probably scuttled to prevent boarding.
And you will put in anger a lot of people in this forum who regard Bismarck as a very lousy design and poor armoured Battleship. :!:
Expect to be yourself under attack because, to many, only the Iowa Class Battleships are worthy warships, and all others are inferior machines, specially Bismarck. There is no hypothetical scenario played in this forum, in which the Bismarck is part, that regards her as a probable winner against anything below a torpedo boat... which we know isn´t true: Bismarck was a worthy and powerfull Battleship. :wink:
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Lutscha »

This is what Mr Garzke wrote about a 1on1 Iowa vs BS:

XII. Bismarck vs. Iowa
We are often asked how Bismarck or Tirpitz would fare against an Iowa-class battleship. Generally speaking, this question is easy to answer as follows:
"Not very well!"
The American Iowa-class battleships were armed with powerful, long-ranged 16-inch guns which fired a heavy 2,700-pound armor-piercing shell and benefited from a superior gunfire control system. Furthermore, the Iowas were capable of 33-35 knots maximum speed. Their higher speed and superior horizontal armor protection would have given the Iowas an immense tactical advantage in a long-range gunnery engagement. Their high speed would have granted the Americans choice of engagement and they would have been able to dictate the range at which to do battle. At long ranges, the American 16-inch guns could penetrate Bismarck virtually at will, while the German 380mm gun could only hope for combat system kills against the always vulnerable superstructure of any battleship. U.S. Navy doctrine in the period leading up to World War II was to attain great gun accuracy at long range, for that is where American admirals wanted American battleships to engage a potential foe. By 1944, with their clear advantage in radar technology and superior fire-control systems, the advantage in gunnery engagements would have been conferred even more markedly on the U.S. ships.

Taken from here: http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p3.htm

No, I don´t think that anyone is going to flame a known expert.

Of course could a fully functional BS handle the Situation of 27th May by virtue of just running away.

Karl please, as far as I remember people like me said mediocre (for her displacement) which is not changed by the fact that history made BS a legend.
Having read the works of G&D I have the impression that they are also pretty critical about the design of BS.
User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Post by José M. Rico »

Karl, the fact that Bismarck was probably scuttled to prevent boarding, does not necessarily have to anger those who think Bismarck was a "very lousy design". In fact, some Bismarck critics support the scuttling theory. On the other hand, the British in general regard Bismarck as a great warship, but don't ask them about scuttling; they sunk the Bismarck!!! As someone said, it is a matter of pride. I think that is what Mr. Garzke was referring to.

Regards, :D
phil gollin
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:33 am

Post by phil gollin »

What confuses me is that the idea of the ship being "scuttled" is somehow meant to mean something good.

If a ship has to scuttle itself does this imply some sort of victory ? If so, why didn't the Bismarck scuttle herself in a German harbour ?

I'm sure it means something to some people, I'm just not sure what.

As far as the above goes the only thig I would note is that one can have opinions, but not facts. There are lots of claims, but no facts, so opinions should be circumscibed with provisos.
Lutscha
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Lutscha »

phil gollin wrote:What confuses me is that the idea of the ship being "scuttled" is somehow meant to mean something good.

If a ship has to scuttle itself does this imply some sort of victory ? If so, why didn't the Bismarck scuttle herself in a German harbour ?

I'm sure it means something to some people, I'm just not sure what.
I wonder myself as well especially since it was nothing special. All 4 Japanese carriers at Midway were scuttled as was Kirishima and many more ships but somehow their scuttling does not have the same kind of "importance" that the one of BS has.

Maybe Midway was an American defeat after all showing their inability to sink Japanese carriers.
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Bismarck scuttling

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Ciao all,

I like all the competent analysis done by everybody, ... especially the points touched by Bill Garzke and Jose',..... prevention on been boarded and pride,.. been the crucial factors.

There is another one I like to underline, .. do not forget Hood needed a revenge for Royal Navy, .. and Hood was sunk by gunfire.

That is why Adm Tovey wanted to sink the Bismarck with gunfire, .. after an heavy ' punishement ' done while disabling her ( check the event timetable that morning ), .... everything was executed accordingly but Bismarck was refusing to sink very fast.

Than Adm Tovey accepted the final evidences, the torpedoes were needed and ordered Dorsetshire and every other unit armed with torpedoes to finish her off.

But at that point, scuttling process was already started as the Germans were not in condition anymore to defende herself and must prevent the probable boarding by Royal Navy, as they ceased fire with the Bismarck still afloat but disabled and with no guns defense anymore.

@ Phil,

I take your point, but scuttling a ship air bombed and sinking is only a prevention to be taken off by the enemy, which was the Japanese goal exactly as for the Germans on Bismarck, so a confirmation of what I am saying, just prevention and the honor defense, for all the crew.

In case of Bismarck, the useless try to sink her only with gunfire for one and a half hour ( from 08.49 till 10.22 ) hoping to blew her off from the sea created the Bismarck myth.

Was Bismarck going to sink anyway ? : YES, slowly but surely

Were the torpedo by Dorsetshire going to accellerate the process ? YES, but it is to me unknown how many needed, looking at current ship hull status.

Was the scuttling process initiated by the German the decisive factor for her fast sinking ? YES, very likely, almost for sure.

@ Lutscha,

The ''pride'' concept of Bismarck is all into the ship ''strenght'' showed as a ship against all odds and all enemy guns, and was created by the Rodney, the KG V, Norfolk and Dorsetshire guns,... pounding her for one and a half hour,.. with the intention to blow her off,..... unsuccesfully.

Torpedoes .... and mostly scuttling were needed to sink her after ... the standard gunfire, .... no doubts.

Those are indisputable facts ...... :think:

Just compare with some other battleships sunk on WW 2 :

Hood ?
Barham ?
PoW ?
Repulse ?
Yamato ?
Musashi ?
Scharnhorst ?
Tirpitz ?
Roma ?

and you will immediately realize from the facts why some of those ships became myths....... and some did not, ....

Ciao Antonio :D
User avatar
paulcadogan
Senior Member
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Post by paulcadogan »

Hello everyone,

It seems pretty clear that the Germans built very tough ships capable of absorbing tremendous punishment - look at their BC's at Jutland: Seydlitz limping into harbour in shambles with her bow almost under water - though Lutzow was not so lucky. Look at the Graf Zeppelin - an aircraft carrier - refusing to sink after absorbing 24 bomb and shell hits from the Russians, requiring torpedoes to get her to go under.

So Bismarck's staying power is no surprise. But once again, I'll state the main problem with the British BB bombardment - too close a range, flat shell trajectories with horrendous damage to her upperworks. Her main armament was knocked out of action surprisingly easily. How well would she have stood up with the British heavy shells raining down with trajectories similar to those of the Denmark Strait? (Similar to the Bismarck vs. Iowa analysis.) Look at the flooding caused by Prince of Wales' two major hits.

I still maintain that the British objective of putting Bismarck under water was achieved - the scuttling was carried out as a result of the ship being reduced to a wallowing, flaming hulk by the British, with the slaughter of so many of her crew. The scuttling action would also have had the objective of saving as many lives as possible, allowing those who could to get off, accelerating an end to the British assault, and the rescue of survivors. (Unfortunately another cruel twist of fate wiped that away).

But, I know that opinions will vary and this debate will likely go on :wink: !

Paul
Laurenz
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:57 am
Location: mainz germany

Dear Forumsmembers

Post by Laurenz »

Its very simple. The british had a lot of luck, that the Germans were so stupid to do it by themselves.
The British had to leave the place of the final battle, cause of fuel and so on.
The only chance to sink Bismarck for the British would have been to enter her.
Musashi sunk after 11 heavy bomb hits and 16 torpedo hits.
Bismarcks belt was not really damaged.
Lütjens has had a chance to wait for submarines.
The British were never very able to sink german battleships.
Question to our Scharnhorst-Fans here?
How much the British had blown out to sink Scharnhorst?
Kind regards,
L.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Dear Forumsmembers

Post by RF »

Laurenz wrote:Musashi sunk after 11 heavy bomb hits and 16 torpedo hits.
Correction.

It took 17 bomb hits and 19 torpedo hits to sink Musashi, the latter score is the official record for the most number of torpedo hits to sink a ship.
Laurenz wrote:The only chance to sink Bismarck for the British would have been to enter her.
Sorry, but NO.

There was still the Mediteranean Fleet, with the Repulse and Ark Royal together with their escorting destroyers available to finish the job.
Laurenz wrote:Bismarcks belt was not really damaged.
I believe it was penetrated in four places in the final battle, plus the two hits from POW.
Laurenz wrote:Its very simple. The british had a lot of luck, that the Germans were so stupid to do it by themselves.
Both sides had the element of luck, the Germans at the DS battle.

The latter comment ''the Germans were stupid to do it by themselves'' I take to mean sending out Bismarck and PE alone.

I tend to agree that there is something in this, Rheinubung could have been far better supported, as I have suggested previously in other threads.
BUT Rheinubung produced for the Germans an unexpected success and if that fatal torpedo hit had instead been a near miss, Bismarck would have reached France in triumph....
Hitler would not have forbade future Atlantic sorties for the major KM ships so in the Autumn of 1941 Bismarck could have sortied again in company with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, while Tirpitz could have been statoned in Norwegian waters to tie British ships down guarding against her breaking out.
Laurenz wrote:Lütjens has had a chance to wait for submarines.
Actually he did try but it does take time to create a U-Boat trap, which doesn't fit into fast moving events.
Laurenz wrote:The British were never very able to sink german battleships.
Question to our Scharnhorst-Fans here?
How much the British had blown out to sink Scharnhorst?
The British had very few opportunities to sink German battleships, the Americans had none at all.

So the Allies weren't able by experience to determine the most efficient way to despatch heavily armoured battleships by gunfire. The Americans had the same ''difficulty'' in the Pacific particulary as there were very few battleship vs. battleship actions.
The US doctrine of long range gunnery actions involving the Iowa class battleships was never, as far as I am aware, ever tested once....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply