Victorious and its involvement

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

jason spurr

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by jason spurr » Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:31 pm

I'm sorry Tommy, I find your knowledge extensive and very helpful. I have studied this other copy and i have come to the conclusion that it has been taken from a plane, but the dark object is not someone's shoulder. On the copy that Marc has produced i can make out dials of some sort, making this not a mans shoulder but the front left corner of the cockpit. My copy also shows faint dial shapes on the previously thought shoulder. You can disregard the theory of mine that this photo was taken from the Victorious on the morning of the 27Th. It was taken from one of her aircraft on the morning of the 27Th.. No one can honestly tell me these two explosions billowing from the bismarck was caused from a single torpedo hit below the waterline.. The flash on the horizon to the left of the Bismarck on my copy clearly identifies gun fire, at the same time an air-strike successfully made a hit. Know wonder why Sir Ludovic Kennedy said the early stages of the battle had a majestic beauty, the colour contrast in a gray sea would be something he would never forget.

I never heard my grandfather talk about the war once while i was growing up, not until 1989 when Robert Ballard found the wreck. My grandfather had watched the documentary and obviously it wasn't the truth. This is why he said what he said and made sure i was left this collection. I visited a Victorious sailor around 6 years ago and what unfolded was somewhat puzzling. He had one of his old navy mates along for the day to view the collection. We sat down and had some tea and i started to show him this collection, he liked many of the photos of the Victorious and her aircraft. It wasn't until i got to the five photos of there involvement with the Bismarck that the mood changed. When he saw the photo we are discussing he went all quiet. I at that moment asked his the question, was the Victorious there on the final day and did you score a hit. His face sunk , he looked at the photo once more and handed it back to me. This man didn't even answer my question, he just stood up and left the room. His friend was very embarrassed, he said to me, "I dont think he is allowed to talk about it". He went on to apologize again and said unfortunatly i will have to show you out. I didn't see the Victorious sailor again but he made it very clear to my partner and I that he was hiding something. I believe one of the photos I have of the King on the Victorious can shed some light on why this was kept so secret.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3101
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by Dave Saxton » Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:03 pm

Jason, rather than speculating and drawing conclusions from difficult to put in context commentary decades after the fact, or a few photos without known context; I would suggest engaging in a proper historical research project objectively employing the scientific method. Go to the Public Records Office and access the related Admiralty documents. You will want to study the Victorous war diaries, including those of various departments, and such items as fuel consumption and fuel inventories, when and where re-fueling took place, ammunition inventories and expenditures, aircraft action and de-briefing reports...ect. Also examine the records of related warships such as Renown, KGV, and the escorting destroyers. Study the comminucations logs of Admiral Tovey's flag ship, Victorious, and the Admiralty.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7621
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by RF » Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:47 pm

jason spurr wrote:Yes, lets assume i am right...... . Yes the Bismarck would have seen the Victorious on one side and the Battleships on the other. Some survivors said they felt like the British had them surrounded and they were being attacked from all sides.
Indeed Bismarck was ''surrounded''.... she was being fired on from the opposite flank to the two battleships by Norfolk, which towards the end of that battle was joined by Dorsetshire which also opened fire.
Was the Victorious in range of Bismarck's guns. She might have been!
On what evidence? None of the other British ships saw Victorious there. And what carrier captain would allow his command to blunder into range of the main armament of an enemy battleship without taking immediate avoiding action? Such negligence would call for court martial action!
..... i have had this photo tested and it was concluded that the flash on the horizon was caused from a bright light, like the flash from a big gun
That is conjecture. Conjecture that has no backing anywhere else.
. There was no battleships firing at the Bismarck on the 24Th. So with all respect Tommy if you believe it was taken out of a plane on the 24Th, I'm afraid you are wrong..
I don't think he is wrong at all. You have offered only conjecture and hearsay that has no factual or evidential support anywhere else.I also note that you have ignored all my posts offering contradictory evidence, presumably that is because you have no answer to them in pursuing your incorrect interpretations.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

jason spurr

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by jason spurr » Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:19 am

Thanks Dave, i will go through all those records.

jason spurr

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by jason spurr » Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:07 pm

I appreciate all your comments on this topic, even yours RF. I have tried to attach some of my photos as well as the description my grandfather gives on the back. You will see that the descriptions on these photos are correct. As i have said previously the ink has been tested and dated to the early 40's. If we can focus on the photo "Victorious torpedo hits Bismarck" and discuss when exactly it was taken. It is clear to me now that it was taken from an aircraft, but not on the 24Th. If it was taken on the during the strike on the 24Th why isn't it in the history books. No, this is not a torpedo hit below the waterline. It is an image of two major explosions hitting the Bismarck. I truly believe it was taken on the morning of the 27Th at the very start of the battle and the dark explosion was a torpedo hitting the port side of the catapult. I have attached my two Tirpitz photos so you can see what this would have looked like close up. I thank you again Dave for your help and a visit to the National Archives has been arranged. Although i believe scientific evidence to prove what exactly caused this hugh hole on the port side will undoubtedly solve the mysteries.

[img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG_0010.jpg[/img]
[img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG222.jpg[/img][img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG_0005.jpg[/img][img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG_0002.jpg[/img][img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG_0007.jpg[/img][img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG123.jpg[/img][img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG_0006.jpg[/img][img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG_0001.jpg[/img][img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG_0008.jpg[/img][img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG.jpg[/img][img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG_0011.jpg[/img][img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/1111.jpg[/img][img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG_0003.jpg[/img][img]/Users/Spurr/Desktop/IMG_0004.jpg[/img]

I do hope these images appear as i truly believe some should have a place in the history books.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7621
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by RF » Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:29 pm

It appears that none of the images in the above post will open, certainly not on my PC. The references look as if they are typed in incorrectly, as the blue hyperlink isn't displayed.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

jason spurr

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by jason spurr » Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:55 pm

Thanks RF, I appreciate your reply. I have organized for a friend to come over tomorrow night to try and help me attach these photos and there descriptions. Sorry for the delay..

jason spurr

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by jason spurr » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:42 pm

Here is the link to the photos in question with the description following each image. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonspurr ... 163502290/

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1459
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by Herr Nilsson » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:27 pm

Your pictures are a cropped version of the pictures I linked to. They're well known and it seems to me that they're simple pictures postcards.
The Tirpitz smoke column looks more like artificial smoke frome the ship's smoke generators.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

jason spurr

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by jason spurr » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:17 pm

I'm not sure what your on about? The two aerial photographs of the Tirpitz are not of her showing artificial smoke but are of two hits that were inflicted by aircraft off the Victorious during operation Tungsten. I only displayed these two photos to give a comparison to the next one," Victorious torpedo hits Bismarck". The Bismarck was never seen as far as I know, giving off smoke from her smoke generators!! As for the number of the photos that are printed on postcard backings, this is how they were probably sold to the crew.. Although the photos of the Tirpitz and the King are on photographic paper. Really what the images are printed on and if they are cropped or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there is a photo here that states a Victorious torpedo hit Bismarck.. When was it taken?? What caused the flash on the horizon?? I wish you would all stop beating around the bush...

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3101
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by Dave Saxton » Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:42 pm

I'm familar with the 1944 Tirpitz photos. They are also well known and the Imperial War Museum is usually cited as having the copyright. In these photos the ball of smoke is enhanched by steam from a jammed steam siren or may be from the steam actually. Tirpitz had also cranked up the smoke generators prior to the attacks these are the streams of smoke that can be seen.
The two aerial photographs of the Tirpitz are not of her showing artificial smoke but are of two hits that were inflicted by aircraft off the Victorious during operation Tungsten.....The fact of the matter is that there is a photo here that states a Victorious torpedo hit Bismarck..
Then the photos of bomb hits on Tirpitz, and/or steam plumes are not relevant to correlate to torpedo hits on BS. Torpedo hits yield big tall geysers of water, not balls of smoke. Just google up some of the photos of torpedo hits at Pearl Harbor. This smoke is misindentified as a torpedo hit in my opinion.
When was it taken??
If it was at the time of a Victorious torpedo hit, then at about 2330 hours (German Summer Time) on May 24th. The plume of smoke is probably a combination of funnel smoke and gun powder smoke from AA fire. Some accounts report a plume of funnel smoke at about this time. Bismarck appears to be under way at speed and running a straight course.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3101
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by Dave Saxton » Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:08 pm

What caused the flash on the horizon??


How do we know it was a flash? It could be just a defect in the photo. But assuming it is a flash that can be explained on the 24th. It does not place the date on the 27th. Just as the air attack was winding down (and the torpedo hit was at the end of air attack) Prince of Wales opened fire breifly from a distance about 15,000 meters, which was the limit of visibility at the time.

Also some accounts report the Norfolk was shining it search lights to identify itself as a friendly during the air attack. According to some accounts; as the Swordfish appraoched the battle area they first located a radar contact using their ASV -II airborne radar sets before popping out of the soup and lining up to attack. They assumed the radar contact was the Bismarck. It wasn't. They mistook radar contacts for an American Coast Guard Cutter and the Norfolk for the Bismarck before they finally were directed to the Bismarck by the Norfolk. It took some frantic signaling to get them to break off from attacking the Norfolk.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Djoser
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:45 am
Location: Key West Florida USA

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by Djoser » Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:15 am

With all due respect to your grandfather, you are asking an awful lot of us, to revise history entirely on the basis of the recollections of one aged man--or even two if the elderly survivor you visited was actually upset about some dire secrets, and not perhaps about his horrible experiences of war. When none of the other thousands of survivors n either side have come forth with anything corroborating this revised version of events.

I met a guy who was on Guadalcanal with the 1st Marines. Though he was a very lively and spirited conversationalist, who had no qualms whatsoever on blaming wars and the accompanying death and suffering on the f*cking politicians, as he so succinctly put it, he steadfastly refused to tell me about any specific memories of combat. I was eager to hear anything he would tell me, as I had such great admiration for those boys with the 1st Marines. But there was no way I was going to annoy this old guy any further, if he didn't want to talk about it.

Look, we are not saying your grandfather--bless his soul--was lying or 'wrong' or that his story should be dismissed out of hand. If it was my grandfather, I might want to believe him as well. But my own deceased grandfather was prone to distortion and exaggeration when discussing his own experience in WW II. Not saying your grandfather was because mine was--just saying that one old man's story, no matter how heartfelt and sincere, is not enough to overturn the stories of several thousands of other old men, who all went through the same ordeal or even worse.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7621
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by RF » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:29 am

I agree with Djosers' comments.

As is said, there were thousands of other men there and none of them in the intervening 71 years have produced any evidence that the recorded version of events was incorrect.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

jason spurr

Re: Victorious and its involvement

Post by jason spurr » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:11 pm

I hope to recap on a few things previously discussed and look at these photos more closely.. I would like to start with the first Tirpitz photo 0011. Can we agree that this is a Victorious torpedo hitting the port side of Bruno?

Post Reply