Bismarck trapped

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Collingwood
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:58 am
Location: USA

Bismarck trapped

Post by Collingwood »

I can only imagine the psychological state of Bismarck's crew that last night as the reality of an unmanoeuverable ship; and little or no hope of rescue or relief in the face of the RN forces bearing down dawns upon them. The Admiral on board despatches his melodramatic "We will fight to the last shell" message to Hitler and destroyer attacks make sleep difficult or impossible.
I wonder if it might have been better to "do a Graf Spee"?
At dawn present the British with the spectre of a listing, sinking Bismarck; and 1000's of crew in the boats and rafts awaiting pick-up; rather than wait as "sheep for the slaughter"?
Not very heroic or Gotterdammerung-ish, yes; but there were precedents and many lives would have been saved. :think:
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by Tiornu »

Better for whom? If we take your reasoning to its obvious conclusion, then Hitler would not have invaded Poland. What sort of madness is this?
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by minoru genda »

Better for whom Tiornu aks? :shock:
Much better for Bismarck crew that's for sure.

When you have no chance to win it is better to surrender. About the Graf Spee, I think it was a mistake to scuttle the ship in Montevideo but to scuttle Bismarck before the last battle would of been a good order. When you dont have a chance to win it is better to surrender and save lives.
Tora! Tora! Tora!
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

When you have no chance to win it is better to surrender.
What kind of thinking is that? I bet the real Minory Genda would have never given any thought to that...

Or the heroes of El Alamo...

Or General McAuliffe...

Or the surrounded marines at Khe Sanh...

Or XXth Maine´s commander, Chamberlain, at Little Round Top...

Or John Paul Jones...

Question/ When the going gets though so let´s throw the towel?

Answer/ Nuts!
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Collingwood
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:58 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by Collingwood »

Tiornu wrote:Better for whom? If we take your reasoning to its obvious conclusion, then Hitler would not have invaded Poland. What sort of madness is this?
Uhhh..YES...it would have been better if Hitler had not invaded Poland..dont' you think?
I definitely agree with Minoru; it would certainly have been better for the crew of Bismarck; including those young naval cadets. If Lutjens wanted, he could have ordered a Graf Spee for his ship and then later, if he wanted to fight "to the last shell" he could have done a " Langsdorff".

And where the heck was the Luftwaffe?
:?
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by Tiornu »

I hate explaining a punchline.
More seriously, the German navy went into WWII with a reputation for refusing to fight. Graf Spee handed the British a moral victory by refusing to come out and fight, just as the Germans in WWI had done, and German morale suffered accordingly. The men aboard Bismarck were most probably lost to the German war effort in any case, so sparing their lives so they could become prisoners accomplished nothing for the German war effort. In contrast, by fighting to the end, the crew accomplished a couple things--they restored the reputation of the German navy, and they gained a chance to inflict injury on the enemy. Both of those are genuine accomplishments.
Attempts to minimize the horror of war are understandable, but the fact is that war chews its way through young men and it will always do so. If that is not an acceptable reality, then neither is war. Feel free to abolish it.
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by minoru genda »

to Karl Heidenreich:

The heroes of El Alamo or the 101st Division in Bastogne to put an example sacrificed themselves to let others win (Patton, independence of Texas), but the case of the Bismack is different because the sacrifice of 2,000 Germans didn't allow other German forces to win anything. It was a brave last stand yes, but it was worthless.
Tora! Tora! Tora!
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

The guys that died at El Alamo knew for sure they were going to die. And a lot of the guys at Bastogne didn´t knew that Patton was comming to rescue them, and if they did, maybe they thought like Bedell Smith that Patton could not move his three divisions in 48 hours from the moment the order was given. They die because it was their duty, because the believed in the value of their sacrifice, as many hundreds of thousands of russian soldiers which didn´t heard of Stalingrad but believed that their deaths would, somehow, help the final victory. Or those Viet Cong or NVA regulars, killed by thousands, maybe trapped in ambushes, how could they had known how usefull or not were their deaths?
Or those boys at Little Round Top: didn´t knew if their deaths would save, historically, the Federal Line at Gettysburg.
Surrendering is, for many, not so an easy option. There were cases, like Singapore or Corregidor, when there was no other choice, agreed. But neither Percival would be remembered as McAullife.
Or, talking about Graf Spee, I don´t think Langsdorf wasn´t thinking in a more honorable way to die.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by tommy303 »

If Bismarck were a merchant ship, yes that would be the thing to do, but being a combatant warship----well! However humanitarian it might have been for Lindemann or Luetjens to try and save as many of the crew as possible, war is not a humanitarian business--one might even say being humanitarian is something of a luxury in the course of total war. Duty would demand that ship and crew resist to the end and try to inflict as much damage on the enemy as possible, even when the outcome would be hopeless. Should the defenders of the Alamo (which by the way Luetjens visited in the 1930s) have surrendered the moment the Mexican army arrived? In either case, duty was to hurt the enemy if possible and put on a brave show for the the folks back home that one's propaganda machine could use to strengthen the national resolve.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by lwd »

Karl Heidenreich wrote:.... And a lot of the guys at Bastogne didn´t knew that Patton was comming to rescue them, and if they did, maybe they thought like Bedell Smith that Patton could not move his three divisions in 48 hours from the moment the order was given. ....
A teacher of mine was at Bastogne. He once said he didn't think they'd get out until he heard Patton was coming then he was pretty sure they would.
User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by Karl Heidenreich »

Well, lwd, Patton was... well: PATTON!

In the hypothetical case I was there, then if I heard Monty was comming then I´ll be nervous. If I heard Patton was comming, then I knew he would come!

Best regards.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill
User avatar
Collingwood
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:58 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by Collingwood »

OK then, glad to see my post has stirred such a passionate and interesting discussion.
Let's try another tack: given the reality that Bismarck was a ship-of-war; and that the German Navy might have acquired an image of scuttle and refusal to fight ( The mutinies ogf 1918, the scuttle at Scapa Flow in 1919; Graf Spee at Montevideo) perhaps a reversion to a tradition of war at sea: striking one's colors after an honorable fight?
Now I know given the sheer force of the British gunfire, the reduced visibility, the pobable alomst immediate loss of radio communication, might a signal of surrender have somehow been given?
I don't know. I still hold that an honorable scuttle was perferable to a slaughter.
And still, where was that fat Goering's bombers? Off in the East I presume...but no Luftwaffe at all over Bismarck? Shame.
User avatar
minoru genda
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:09 am

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by minoru genda »

OK guys. I think you are right.
After reading Tommy303 post you have convinced me. Bismarck did what she had to do.

Graf Spee should of done the same, get out of Montevideo and resume the fight with the British cruisers to the last shell.
Tora! Tora! Tora!
Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by Tiornu »

I still hold that an honorable scuttle was perferable to a slaughter.
I believe that was the intent. Once shells started penetrating into the vitals, there was no point in continuing, so the scuttle order was given.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck trapped

Post by RF »

This issue of whether the Bismarck on the night of 26/27 May 1941 should have been scuttled to spare the crew has been raised before. My answer then, as now, is a resounding NO.

Bismarck was a warship, and a warship with a very high reputation. Yes it was trapped and almost unmaneouverable. But its armament was unimpaired, and tried and tested.

In a situation like that the Bismarck did potentially have a lot to gain, even if the loss of the ship was certain. If the gunnery was as good as at the DS battle three days earlier, there was the prospect of severe damage to the two British battleships - what for example if another lucky hit happened very early in the battle, where Rodney was hit and its gunnery knocked out - or even, as discussed in other threads, Rodney blowing up?
In the event this didn't happen, Bismarck did not hit the British ships. But it could have done.

As for Bismarck's crew, most of them volunteered for the KM. Germany had military conscription, yes, but most of the officers and men had chosen the Navy for their military service and therefore would know the risks involved in wartime, where Germany did not control the seas. Death or mutilation in military service is literally an occupational hazard, it has to be accepted as part of military discipline.

As for the crew - if the ship is scuttled what happens to them? No escape to Argetina there, U-boats cannot pick them up (too many men) so they either sit in lifeboats until they either die or become prisoners of the British.

No, there are many sound reasons for a trapped Bismarck to fight to the end. Not least that Luftwaffe support should have been available.And trying to apply today's politically correct mentality to the situation is simply not appropriate.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply