Naval History Forums

Victorious being present on the morning of the 27Th of may and scoring a fatal torpedo hit on the port side of the Bismarck's catapult...

HMS Victorious launched aircraft to attack Bismarck on 24 May following the sinking of the Hood and the detachment of the Prinz Eugen. One hit was scored midships killing one German crewman and injuring six others and causing shock damage which led to a previously damaged boiler room flooding out. After Bismarck lost her shadowers, aircraft from the carrier helped the in vain search for the battleship, and when contact was not regained, Victorious was detached for refueling and took no further part in the operation. I would hardly classify the hit as fatal, and Bismarck continued on for another three days before being crippled by a hit from a torpedo plane launched by Ark Royal and subsequently sunk by Tovey's battleships and cruisers.

Well anyone that can read a history book would be aware of that air-strike the Victorious launched on the 24Th and other then killing one man and injuring a number of others there was no significant damage inflicted on the Bismarck. Yes true! But i beg to differ that that was the only involvement the Victorious had in the battle. I have a photo of the Victorious taken during the Chase and also how can you explain the report from radio London and a Swedish newspaper that the Victorious successfully achieved a hit on Bismarck during the night of 26Th/27Th?? The Victorious was there on that final morning and did inflict a fatal blow despite what the official records state. There is such a thing as the official secrets act. It was not created for no reason.. My grandfather was no lier, what he has wrote on the back of all these photos is true and correct. With the help from the Victorious the Bismarck was destroyed in the very early stages of the final battle. It wont be long until i have the evidence to support this. The history books will be rewritten and the British will be exposed for the war crimes they committed.

Good luck!

There is such a thing as the official secrets act. It was not created for no reason..

It was created in 1889, rather a long time before the Bismarck episode. In any event, it would not apply to German survivors in the years following the war who could pretty much say what the wished.

The Germans don't have anything to hide in this matter. It is the British that have covered up what really happened and have left out one ships involvement in the final battle. All the German survivors stated they scuttled the ship, I believe this to be true! People have dived on the wreck numerous times and found no evidence of the ships hull being penetrated. Even though the British did not actually sink the Bismarck, they did put it out of action in the very early stages of the battle and rendered it no longer a threat. This would explain why some survivors spent almost the duration of the battle in the water. Even British sailors early on in the battle witnessed men jumping from the stern in single file. Why did the British continue firing on a surrendered ship??

Course of Victorious according "Battle Summary No. 5"

jason spurr wrote:... It is the British that have covered up what really happened and have left out one ships involvement in the final battle.

Or not.

All the German survivors stated they scuttled the ship,

Really? All of them did?

People have dived on the wreck numerous times and found no evidence of the ships hull being penetrated.

I don't think either point is correct. I'm pretty sure the wreck is too deep to dive on and that indeed a number of holes in the hull have been found by the submersibles that surveyed the wreck.

Even though the British did not actually sink the Bismarck, ...

That doesn't necessarily follow. Perhaps it's an exercise in semantics but the Bismarck was clearly sunk due to British actions and was in sinking condition when scuttled.

Even British sailors early on in the battle witnessed men jumping from the stern in single file.

Source PLS.

Why did the British continue firing on a surrendered ship??

Your question is based on a false understanding. To clarify: When did the Bismarck surrender? As far as I know she never did?

jason spurr wrote:... how can you explain the report from radio London and a Swedish newspaper that the Victorious successfully achieved a hit on Bismarck during the night of 26Th/27Th?? ....

How can you explain the report in US papers that "Battleship X" sunk a Japanese battleship off Gadualcanal? Or similarly that USAAF planes sunk one or more Japanese carriers at Midway?

Thanks Marc for your replies. But as for the other comments, i knew i would just be banging my head against a wall.

jason spurr wrote:... But as for the other comments, i knew i would just be banging my head against a wall.

That's the general reaction to post based on questionable or factually challenged data especially those lacking any sort of reference.

I think some people must only have one book on the Bismarck and it has been written by the British. To reflect on some of your comments lwd, what does a report in US papers about battleship X sinking a Japanese ship have anything to do with the Bismarck. If the history of the Bismarck was written how it really happened the topic would not be so intensively debated today. A number of experts have dived on the wreck and at 15 700 feet, obviously in a sub and not with a snorkel lwd. They all found no sign of the hull being penetrated below the waterline. You need to look up these reports, Dr A McLaren in the New York Times stated this, Dr Robert Ballard and James Cameron also said the same thing. British sailors aboard King George V witnessed men jumping from the Bismarck. At least three observers from Rodney saw signals of surrender, including the flying of a black flag, internationally recognised as the sign for Parley and signals from four morse lamps on Bismarck's mast.. A testimony from Tommy Byers a gunnery observer aboard Rodney also witnessed these signs and when reported to his gunnery officer Lt Crawford, he was told not to report this again, that he didn't want to hear anymore of it.. I am not going to waste anymore of my time clarifying myself to people. The truth will surface one day and the Victorious will finally receive the recognition it deserves.

jason spurr wrote:I think some people must only have one book on the Bismarck and it has been written by the British. To reflect on some of your comments lwd, what does a report in US papers about battleship X sinking a Japanese ship have anything to do with the Bismarck. If the history of the Bismarck was written how it really happened the topic would not be so intensively debated today. A number of experts have dived on the wreck and at 15 700 feet, obviously in a sub and not with a snorkel lwd. They all found no sign of the hull being penetrated below the waterline. You need to look up these reports, Dr A McLaren in the New York Times stated this, Dr Robert Ballard and James Cameron also said the same thing. British sailors aboard King George V witnessed men jumping from the Bismarck. At least three observers from Rodney saw signals of surrender, including the flying of a black flag, internationally recognised as the sign for Parley and signals from four morse lamps on Bismarck's mast.. A testimony from Tommy Byers a gunnery observer aboard Rodney also witnessed these signs and when reported to his gunnery officer Lt Crawford, he was told not to report this again, that he didn't want to hear anymore of it.. I am not going to waste anymore of my time clarifying myself to people. The truth will surface one day and the Victorious will finally receive the recognition it deserves.

Surely the ships hull is buried to above the waterline so all the shell hits would not be visable and any torpedo damage would be well below the waterline?

The the best of my knowledge, a black flag was never an internationally recognized signal for parley or cease fire. In point of fact, the internationally recognized flag for that purpose in 1941 was a white flag as stipulated in the Hague convention.

jason spurr wrote:... To reflect on some of your comments lwd, what does a report in US papers about battleship X sinking a Japanese ship have anything to do with the Bismarck.

It rather clearly illustrates that newspapers especially during wartime are not particularly reliable sources.

If the history of the Bismarck was written how it really happened the topic would not be so intensively debated today.

Or not. There are details on just about any historical incident that are still debated especially if the conspiracy theorist get involved.

A number of experts have dived on the wreck and at 15 700 feet, obviously in a sub and not with a snorkel lwd.

I believe you will find that they did not "dive the wreck" at all. The wreck was surveyed with a remotely piloted vehicle.

They all found no sign of the hull being penetrated below the waterline. You need to look up these reports, Dr A McLaren in the New York Times stated this, Dr Robert Ballard and James Cameron also said the same thing.

But that's not what you said earlier is it? You said no penetrations of the hull. In any case I'd like to see your sources as I think you are at best misinterpreting things. Indeed if we look at
http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p3.htm
we see the following:

as the underwater hull of the battleship is buried in the silt of the seabed.

Makes it kind of hard to see underwater damage now doesn't it?

British sailors aboard King George V witnessed men jumping from the Bismarck.

They may well have but it certainly wasn't "early on in the battle" as you state now was it? Were any of the British ships even close enough "early on in the battle" to see individuals?

At least three observers from Rodney saw signals of surrender, including the flying of a black flag, internationally recognised as the sign for Parley and signals from four morse lamps on Bismarck's mast.

This has been discussed here and elsewhere in the not to distant past. The black flag is not an internationally recognized Parley signal. Again I'd like to see your sources for the Morse code signals. As you don't make any claims as to what was signaled I have my doubts.

. A testimony from Tommy Byers a gunnery observer aboard Rodney also witnessed these signs and when reported to his gunnery officer Lt Crawford, he was told not to report this again, that he didn't want to hear anymore of it.

And there are serious questions about his testimony are there not?

I am not going to waste anymore of my time clarifying myself to people.

When your position is as weak as it is that's not a bad idea.

The truth will surface one day and the Victorious will finally receive the recognition it deserves.

News flash it has and she has.