Bismarck trapped

[RF]

Graf Spee should of done the same, get out of Montevideo and resume the fight with the British cruisers to the last shell.

Graf Spee should not have gone to Montevideo in the first place.

[RF]

Consider the original question from another aspect, another situation.

When on 19 November 1941 when HMAS Sydney closed in on the hilfskreuzer Kormoran, should the Kormoran at that point have been scuttled? On paper, Kormoran, with over 300 mines on board, was in a worse position than Bismarck on the morning of 27 May 1941.

[ufo]

...
Graf Spee should of done the same, get out of Montevideo and resume the fight with the British cruisers to the last shell.

I am afraid I have to disagree with the Graf Spee comparison. She did not really have the option to fight it out. Langsdorff seemed to make that clear in his communications to Berlin ('War diary SKL' or 'Conferences on Naval Affairs'). Well – he tried to make it clear. But apparently neither Raeder let alone the Fuehrer got the message. Both expected the Graf Spee to fight it out to the last shell.

But there was no out-with-a-bang for Graf Spee. She had enough ammunition to either scuttle or fight. You can not prevent a ship in shallow water from falling into the enemies hands when you have no means of blowing it up. Even just setting her ablaze with paint striper and oily cloth would not have done enough damage to prevent her from being turned into a precious prize of war.

Langsdorff apparently considered going out but he obviously was sure that he would be out of ammunition before reaching deep water to scuttle. Running out of ammunition in the shallows would mean being raked with small(ish) arms fire until ready for boarding. At that time of the war capturing a panzership would have been a massive boast to British morale.


In the case of Bismarck there was never a doubt that she could escape downward whenever her command pleased. The Brits did not want her and knew that they could not get her. And the Germans likewise knew that they had the freedom of manoeuvre to scuttle. And as Ballard found out she had plenty of water to escape into.

I think Tiornu made it very clear that had Bismarck gone down without a fight she would have scuttled the pride and the morale of the Kriegsmarine with her. Raeder afterwards would have had difficulties coaxing money for as much as a dingy out of Hitler. So Bismarck took the fight and having done her duty to her colours she sensibly scuttled. End of story; end of ship. War is not nice. War is never nice.

Ufo

[Bgile]

I don't understand why AGS would run out of ammunition in shallow water, or why she would run out and the British CLs would not.

I also do not see why AGS would be raked by small arms when her own light weapons hadn't used any ammunition at all.

I do understand why she went to port, but that's been discussed thoroughly.

[lwd]

I don't understand why AGS would run out of ammunition in shallow water, or why she would run out and the British CLs would not.

My impression is they are talking about impressions. The GErmans didn't think that they only had one fresh CA and the two CLs to face they thought that there were significantly more British ships waiting for them including BCs I believe. The Shallow water runs out quite a ways there.

I also do not see why AGS would be raked by small arms when her own light weapons hadn't used any ammunition at all.

Presumably the pounding she would recieve from the British would render them inoperable.

[Collingwood]

Alright then, it seems this discussion has come to a conclusion for me. I agree now with RF and accept his (and other's ) ideas on the decision to "fight the ship" even under adverse conditions. As before, I still hold to the opinion ( as does RF it seems) that the total absence of Lutftwaffe presence over the sea that day is very hard to explain and casts a further pall over an already grim scene.

[Tiornu]

How far was Bismarck from the nearest LW base?

[tommy303]

Not sure of the actual milage as the crow flies, but Bismarck was right at the extreme operational radius of armed HE-111s, some of which appeared in the area just after she went down.

[VeenenbergR]

There are other comparisons to what Bismarck did: trapped but fight it out, no other alternative, albeit accepting heavy losses.

There are the long sieges of Stalingrad (200.000), Budapest (35.000), Breslau (75.000) and Königsberg (80.000) with 100's of thousands of trapped German troops with little to no hope of relief (no Patton present for them!). Still THEY fought it out, obediently, until the bitter end. The same was true for surrounded Berlin. IF the Germans had surrendered Berlin before the final Soviet attack, about 50.000 troops and at least as many civilians would have survived instead of being killed as were at least 20.000's of the more beautiful buildings (which would have made the Berlin of today much more attractive!!). Looting, raping and murdering would be less, because Soviets had less to revenge.
In all cases Germans hoped at least for a relief: Von Mansteins relief attempt in december 1942; the many Konrad offensives to reach Budapest (Hitler himself stopped Konrad2 when relief was almost assured by 5thSS Wiking!!); the 12th Army of Wenck to rescue Berlin. Why had so many people have to die??? So senseless for nothing. They are alll forgotten now. There are NO memorials for them.

I say this to make the case of Bismarck also more acceptable: there were far more heroic defenses which in the end only resulted in mass slaughter and destruction, nothing gained, even no honour. Germans which survived these horrible cities only can think back with great sorrow and fear. It was hell, nothing less.

In this respect the 2100 which died with Bismarck ARE remembered!!!! They have there memorial.

[Bgile]

The same was true for surrounded Berlin. IF the Germans had surrendered Berlin before the final Soviet attack, about 50.000 troops and at least as many civilians would have survived instead of being killed as were at least 20.000's of the more beautiful buildings (which would have made the Berlin of today much more attractive!!). Looting, raping and murdering would be less, because Soviets had less to revenge.
In all cases Germans hoped at least for a relief: Von Mansteins relief attempt in december 1942; the many Konrad offensives to reach Budapest (Hitler himself stopped Konrad2 when relief was almost assured by 5thSS Wiking!!); the 12th Army of Wenck to rescue Berlin. Why had so many people have to die??? So senseless for nothing. They are alll forgotten now. There are NO memorials for them.

I say this to make the case of Bismarck also more acceptable: there were far more heroic defenses which in the end only resulted in mass slaughter and destruction, nothing gained, even no honour. Germans which survived these horrible cities only can think back with great sorrow and fear. It was hell, nothing less.

In this respect the 2100 which died with Bismarck ARE remembered!!!! They have there memorial.

Actually this is not correct in the case of the German soldiers, because many of them (most?) disappeared into the Gulag, never to return. They were literally fighting for their lives, and surrendering just meant a longer death.

[VeenenbergR]

Bgile.

So very true is what you said. The carnage and strugle for life of those 2200 on board of the Bismarck did last from some minutes to some hours on that fateful day in May 1941, but that for the millions of German soldiers lasted much longer: one million were stricken in the bitter and bloody sieges which ended with death of at least 500.000 of them; 4 million went to the "starvation" camps in the East and 2 million more to the starvation camps in France or the US Rhine-camps.
Most had to endure terrible and inhuman sufferings for many years (no Geneva Convention for them). Many perished, committed suicide or became totally numb.
The stories of the survivors of the camps: almost 10 million are horrible and shocking. Many barely survived. The lower ranks suffered far more than the officers (of which 95% survived).
The Germans soldiers (once a member of a very professional army) did have their punishment: 5,3 million of them died: 1,6 million in those starvation camps (starved by sheer "neglectance") and 3,2 million in battle and 0,5 million by other causes. Most of them were as young and inexperienced as the Bismarck crew was, many were older soldiers.
Nobody ever listened to their "survivor" stories, no books were written about the immense suffering, no memorials were allowed. They fought for the "wrong" side, but had few choice when drafted into their army. War is brutal and war is evil.
In this respect the honourful but tragic death of so many brave soldiers on board of Bismarck, Scharnhorst and Tirpitz is only a tiny drop when compared to the loss of life of the soldiers which were stricken on land.

[RF]

Bgile is right, surrender on the Russian Front was hardly an option. In anycase by 1944 and 1945 the German homeland was under threat, not the case with Bismarck, but again sound military reasons for not scuttling.

[The_Ships_Cat]

And where the heck was the Luftwaffe?

With a wind bag like Goring what do you expect?
I can't think of a more usless person in charge. Simplisitc? My comments maybe but when you want total over all charge of everything that flies it's too much to control.

The navy should have been in command of their aircraft then maybe the outcome might have been different.

[lwd]

...The navy should have been in command of their aircraft then maybe the outcome might have been different.

What aircraft and why do you think it would have made a difference?

[Bgile]

In theory she was within range of German Bombers in France when she was sunk. Whether that could have made a difference is anyone's guess.